Re: [Xen-devel] [Hackathon minutes] PV frontends/backends and NUMA machines

[Dario Faggioli <raistlin@xxxxxxxx>]

On mar, 2013-05-21 at 11:06 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> At 14:48 +0100 on 20 May (1369061330), George Dunlap wrote:
> > The second is to make the pfn -> NUMA node layout reasonable.  At the
> > moment, as I understand it, pfns will be striped across nodes.  In
> > theory dom0 could deal with this, but it seems like in practice it's
> > going to be nasty trying to sort that stuff out.  It would be much
> > better, if you have (say) 4 nodes and 4GiB of memory assigned to dom0,
> > to have pfn 0-1G on node 0, 1-2G on node 2, &c.
> 
> I have been having a todo list item since around the release of 4.2
> to add support for "dom0_mem=node<n>" and
> "dom0_vcpus=node<n>" command line options, which I would think
> would be sufficient to deal with that. 
>
I remember such discussion (which, BTW, is here:
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00332.html ).
However, wasn't that supposed to help only in case you want to confine
Dom0 on one specific node?

That would definitely be already something, but not quite the same thing
that came up in Dublin, and that George was describing above (although I
agree it covers a sensible subset of it :-) ).

Regards,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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