Re: [Xen-devel] NUMA TODO-list for xen-devel

[Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Dario Faggioli <raistlin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>    - Inter-VM dependencies and communication issues. If a workload is
>      made up of more than just a VM and they all share the same (NUMA)
>      host, it might be best to have them sharing the nodes as much as
>      possible, or perhaps do right the opposite, depending on the
>      specific characteristics of he workload itself, and this might be
>      considered during placement, memory migration and perhaps
>      scheduling.
> 
>    - Benchmarking and performances evaluation in general. Meaning both
>      agreeing on a (set of) relevant workload(s) and on how to extract
>      meaningful performances data from there (and maybe how to do that
>      automatically?).

I haven't tried out the latest Xen NUMA features yet, but we've been
keeping track of the IPC benchmarks as we get newer machines here:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/ipc-bench/results.html

The newer chipsets (Sandy Bridge and AMD Valencia) both have quite
different inter-core/socket/MPM performance characteristics from their
respective previous generations; e.g.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/ipc-bench/details/tmpfCBrYh.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/ipc-bench/details/tmppI61nX.html

Happy to share the raw data if you have cycles to figure out the best
way to auto-place multiple VMs so they are near each other from a memory
latency perspective.  We haven't run many macro-benchmarks though, so
in practise it might not matter, so it would be nice to settle on a good
set of benchmarks to determine that for sure.

-anil

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel