On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 17:24 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 07/24/2015 05:14 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
On 07/24/2015 04:44 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
In fact, I think that it is the topology, i.e., what comes from MSRs,
that needs to adapt, and follow vNUMA, as much as possible. Do we agree
on this?
I think we have to be very careful here. I see two possible scenarios:
1) The vcpus are not pinned 1:1 on physical cpus. The hypervisor will
try to schedule the vcpus according to their numa affinity. So they
can change pcpus at any time in case of very busy guests. I don't
think the linux kernel should treat the cpus differently in this
case as it will be in vane regarding the Xen scheduler's activity.
So we should use the "null" topology in this case.
Sorry, the topology should reflect the vcpu<->numa-node relations, of
course, but nothing else (so flat topolgy in each numa node).
Yeah, I was replying to this point saying something like this right
now... Luckily, I've seen this email! :-P
With this semantic, I fully agree with this.
2) The vcpus of the guest are all pinned 1:1 to physical cpus. The Xen
scheduler can't move vcpus between pcpus, so the linux kernel should
see the real topology of the used pcpus in order to optimize for this
picture.
Mmm... I did think about this too, but I'm not sure. I see the value of
this of course, and the reason why it makes sense. However, pinning can
change on-line, via `xl vcpu-pin' and stuff. Also migration could make
things less certain, I think. What happens if we build on top of the
initial pinning, and then things change?
To be fair, there is stuff building on top of the initial pinning
already, e.g., from which physical NUMA node we allocate the memory
relies depends exactly on that. That being said, I'm not sure I'm
comfortable with adding more of this...
Perhaps introduce an 'immutable_pinning' flag, which will prevent
affinity to be changed, and then bind the topology to pinning only if
that one is set?
Maybe, there is room for "fixing" this at this level, hooking up inside
the scheduler code... but I'm shooting in the dark, without having check
whether and how this could be really feasible, should I?
Uuh, I don't think a change of the scheduler on behalf of Xen is really
appreciated. :-)
I'm sure it would (have been! :-)) a true and giant nightmare!! :-D
One thing I don't like about this approach is that it would potentially
solve vNUMA and other scheduling anomalies, but...
cpuid instruction is available for user mode as well.
...it would not do any good for other subsystems, and user level code
and apps.
Indeed. I think the optimal solution would be two-fold: give the
scheduler the information it is needing to react correctly via a
kernel patch not relying on cpuid values and fiddle with the cpuid
values from xen tools according to any needs of other subsystems and/or
user code (e.g. licensing).
So, just to check if I'm understanding is correct: you'd like to add an
abstraction layer, in Linux, like in generic (or, perhaps, scheduling)
code, to hide the direct interaction with CPUID.
Such layer, on baremetal, would just read CPUID while, on PV-ops, it'd
check with Xen/match vNUMA/whatever... Is this that you are saying?
If yes, I think I like it...
