[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: Still TODO for 4.2? xl domain numa memory allocation vs xm/xend
On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 13:14 +0000, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 10:19 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > According to me, it should.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > One idea I had over the weekend is that we could support a special
> > 'cpus="pool"' syntax to mean "pin this guest to the node I configured it
> > to be in". I think this is a second best option to simply having
> > d->node_affinity reflect the pool though.
> >
> Which is exactly what Juergen is doing, right? Or you meant something
> else?
I meant what Jeurgen is doing, I just hadn't seen that mail yet.
> > > Then, at least right now, moving it would
> > > probably kill its performances because all its memory will be far away,
> > > while right now it's all more "stochastic".
> >
> > Yes, in some sense the xend behaviour is best case good behaviour and
> > worse case bad behaviour, while xl has a more average/consistent
> > behaviour across the range. In practice however I suspect xend probably
> > hits the good cases more often than not.
> >
> Me too. I'm thinking how/working to get to something even better! :-)
Great.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
