[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] myrinet dma
Thankyou for your comments, they are very helpful. Your reply makes it
sound like some of these options could be feasible which means I will
put everyone's comments to the folks with the cluster in question.
Thankyou for everyone's help!
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:14:58 +0100
Mark Williamson <Mark.Williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> IMO, this is roughly what would need to be done:
> Direct data path:
> The OS component would have to be modified so that in dom0 it would perform
> the usual tasks of pinning memory AND talking to the hardware but in
> unprivileged domains it would pin memory itself and then request that dom0
> up the hardware. This is control path, not data path so the indirection
> shouldn't hurt performance - guest applications can talk to the hardware
> It may be possible to use an existing library as-is, I'm not sure.
> Writing the code to do this should be quite tractable for someone with the
> appropriate experience. I'd imagine that user applications would receive
> similar performance to in non-virtualised configurations, with the
> qualification that if you run lots of domains on one CPU, they will obviously
> tend to experience less CPU time and higher latency anyway.
> This approach limits you to no more clients than you have channels.
> Multiplexed data path:
> Multiplexing multiple guests onto single a channel seems a bit more
> Perhaps it could be done with modifications to allow dom0 to control the
> channel, with other domains requesting data path as well as control path
> operations from it. This could still give zero copy into guest applications
> but there might be some performance hit in latency due to the extra level of
> indirection, although suitable pipelining may provide good bandwith (as for
> the existing net and block drivers).
> This would be more work to implement than direct data path. I guess there's
> also the possibility that your next interface might have lots of channels,
> making such multiplexing less important...
> > Do your plans for infiniband allow 100s of guests to each have high speed
> > networking? How much might the performance degrade?
> Simply having plenty of channels on the host interface card would be more
> straightforward than sharing them, see the above comment for the direct data
> I don't personally know what is planned regarding infiniband support, though.
> > If I'm thinking about this correctly, it sounds like all of these domains'
> > traffic could be put onto one Myrinet channel and five special domains
> > could truly take advantage of Myrinet?
> As for the issue of multiplexing some domains onto an ethernet-type interface
> and having some privileged domains also accessing the card directly, yes this
> sounds plausible in the first scenario described above (control-path
> multiplexing with direct data-path).
> Just my $0.02
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
Xen-devel mailing list