[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [RFC] NUMA topology specification

于 2011年08月19日 16:09, Bharata B Rao 写道:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Osier Yang <jyang redhat com> wrote:
>> 于 2011年08月19日 14:35, Bharata B Rao 写道:
>>> How about something like this ? (OPTION 1)
>>> <cpu>
>>> ...
>>> <numa nodeid='node' cpus='cpu[-cpu]' mem='size'>
>>> ...
>>> </cpu>
>> Libvirt already supported NUMA setting (both cpu and memory)
>> on host yet, but yes, nothing for NUMA setting inside guest yet.
>> We have talked once about the XML when adding the support
>> for numa memory setting on host. And finally choosed to introduce
>> new XML node for it with considering to add support for NUMA
>> setting inside guest one day. The XML is:
>> <numatune>
>> <memory mode="strict" nodeset="1-4,^3"/>
>> </numatune>
> But this only specifies the host NUMA policy that should be used for
> guest VM processes.


>> So, personlly, I think the new XML should be inside "<numatune>"
>> as a child node.
>>> And we could specify multiple such lines, one for each node.
>>> -numa and -smp options in qemu do not work all that well since they
>>> are parsed independent of each other and one could specify a cpu set
>>> with -numa option that is incompatible with sockets,cores and threads
>>> specified on -smp option. This should be fixed in qemu, but given that
>>> such a problem has been observed, should libvirt tie the specification
>>> of numa and smp (sockets,threads,cores) together so that one is forced
>>> to specify only valid combinations of nodes and cpus in libvirt ?
>>> May be something like this: (OPTION 2)
>>> <cpu>
>>> ...
>>> <topology sockets='1' cores='2' threads='1' nodeid='0' cpus='0-1'
>>> mem='size'>
>>> <topology sockets='1' cores='2' threads='1' nodeid='1' cpus='2-3'
>>> mem='size'>
>>> ...
>>> </cpu
>> This will cause we have 3 places for NUMA,
>> one is <numatune>,
> As I observed above, this controls the NUMA policy of the guest VM
> threads on host.

Yes, I known your meaning.

>> the other is "<vcpu>",
> vcpu/cpuset specifies how vcpu threads should be pinned on host.
>> and this one.
> I think what we are addressing here is a bit different from the above
> two. Here we are actually trying to _define_ the NUMA topology of the
> guest, while via other capabilites (numatune, vcpu) we only control
> the cpu and memory bindings of vcpu threads on host.
> Hence I am not sure if if <numatune> is the right place for defining
> host NUMA topology which btw should be independent of the host
> topology.

Maybe something like:


> Thanks for your response.
> Regards,
> Bharata.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]