Re: [Xen-devel] PV-vNUMA issue: topology is misinterpreted by the guest

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 07/27/2015 04:09 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 18:10 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 07/24/2015 05:58 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > 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?
> > Sort of, yes.
> >
> > I just wouldn't add it, as it is already existing (more or less). It
> > can deal right now with AMD and Intel, we would "just" have to add Xen.
> So, having gone through the rest of the thread (so far), and having
> given a fair amount o thinking to this, I really think that something
> like this would be a good thing to have in Linux.
>
> Of course, it's not that my opinion on where should be in Linux counts
> that much! :-D   Nevertheless, I wanted to make it clear that, while
> skeptic at the beginning, I now think this is (part of) the way to go,
> as I said and explained in my reply to George.
I think it's time to obtain some real numbers.

I'll make some performance tests on a big machine (4 sockets, 60 cores,
120 threads) regarding topology information:

- bare metal
- "random" topology (like today)
- "simple" topology (all vcpus regarded as equal)
- "real" topology with all vcpus pinned

This should show:

- how intrusive would the topology patch(es) be?
- what is the performance impact of a "wrong" scheduling data base


Juergen


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