From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 3 v5/leftover] libxl: enable automatic placement of guests on NUMA nodes Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:01:25 +0200 Message-ID: <1342778485.19530.285.camel@Solace> References: <5fa66c8b9093399e5bc3.1342458792@Solace> <5007FBCE.6000201@amd.com> <1342707771.19530.235.camel@Solace> <5009147C.9050604@amd.com> <1342777141.19530.267.camel@Solace> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8809831340368310863==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1342777141.19530.267.camel@Solace> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andre Przywara Cc: Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , George Dunlap , Andrew Cooper , Juergen Gross , Ian Jackson , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============8809831340368310863== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-tYtEfVxtys52rC3EwH46" --=-tYtEfVxtys52rC3EwH46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 11:39 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > If we somehow determine that this approach doesn't work (no nodes with= =20 > > enough free memory or more vCPUs than CPUs-per-node) we should use the= =20 > > sophisticated algorithm. > >=20 > And again, you'll see the new code and will tell me what you think > later, but I really think I turned it into something like that. The only > thing=20 >=20 Some text got cut here. What I wanted to ask is what you think we should do with guests that have more vcpus than pcpus of a node. Right now, as I do for memory, I'm using it as a reason to consider candidates with more than one node. XenD did something similar, as it adds nodes (although it does that afterwords) until the above stop being true. Should we ignore that and stick to the number of nodes that gives us enough memory? Should we do that but only up to a certain extent (e.g., by asking for a candidate to have at least half pcpus as the domain has vcpus)? After all, even if we give the domain enough pcpus, he's not going to have exclusive access to them anyway... Again, just random thought seeking for a confirmation that is very hard to find! :-) Thanks and Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://retis.sssup.it/people/faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-tYtEfVxtys52rC3EwH46 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlAJLHUACgkQk4XaBE3IOsStZQCdH0tFDLmEjypki5PxIkCAPSoJ sXoAnjasEp9Fq8cxRiaDfHMDjvtLcAVY =+zhw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-tYtEfVxtys52rC3EwH46-- --===============8809831340368310863== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============8809831340368310863==--