On 07/24/14 16:40, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:30:43PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: >> On 07/24/14 16:21, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 02:20:22PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: >> >> ... >> >>>> >>>> For targetting the RAM module the target element could have the >>>> following format: >>>> >>>> <target model="dimm" node='2' address='0xdeadbeef'/> >>>> >>>> "node" determines the guest numa node to connect the memory "module" to. >>>> The attribute is optional for non-numa guests or node 0 is assumed. >>> >>> If I'm thinking about this from a physical hardware POV, it doesn't >>> make a whole lot of sense for the NUMA node to be configurable at >>> the time you plug in the DIMM. The NUMA affinity is a property of >>> how the slot is wired into the memory controller. Plugging the DIMM >>> cannot change that. >> >> While this is true for physical hardware, the emulated one apparently >> supports changing a slot's position in the numa topology. Additionally >> this allows to use a non-uniform mapping of memory modules to numa nodes. >> >> Are you suggesting that we should bind certain slots to certain numa >> nodes in advance thus try to emulate the limitations of the physical >> hardware? > > Pretty much, yes. Or provide an API that lets us change the slot > binding at the time we need to plug the DIMMS if we really need > that. Well while it might be workable, that idea makes the whole thing extremely less flexible than qemu actually allows us. I'm not entirely against making it less flexible, I'm concerned that someone might ask for that later. Also adding new APIs is a thing I wanted to avoid as long as we have a pretty powerful device plug/unplug API. > >>> So from that POV, I'd say that when we initially configure the >>> NUMA / huge page information for a guest at boot time, we should >>> be doing that wrt to the 'maxMemory' size, instead of the current >>> 'memory' size. ie the actual NUMA topology is all setup upfront >>> even though the DIMMS are not present for some of this topology. >>> >>>> "address" determines the address in the guest's memory space where the >>>> memory will be mapped. This is optional and not recommended being set by >>>> the user (except for special cases). >>>> >>>> For expansion the model="pflash" device may be added. >>>> >>>> For migration the target VM needs to be started with the hotplugged >>>> modules already specified on the command line, which is in line how we >>>> treat devices currently. >>>> >>>> My suggestion above contrasts with the approach Michal and Martin took >>>> when adding the numa and hugepage backing capabilities as they describe >>>> a node while this describes the memory device beneath it. I think those >>>> two approaches can co-exist whilst being mutually-exclusive. Simply when >>>> using memory hotplug, the memory will need to be specified using the >>>> memory modules. Non-hotplug guests could use the approach defined >>>> originally. >>> >>> I don't think it is viable to have two different approaches for configuring >>> NUMA / huge page information. Apps should not have to change the way they >>> configure NUMA/hugepages when they decide they want to take advantage of >>> DIMM hotplug. >> >> Well, the two approaches are orthogonal in the information they store. >> The existing approach stores the memory topology from the point of view >> of the numa node whereas the <device> based approach from the point of >> the memory module. > > Sure, they are clearly designed from different POV, but I'm saying that > from an application POV is it very unpleasant to have 2 different ways > to configure the same concept in the XML. So I really don't want us to > go down that route unless there is absolutely no other option to achieve > an acceptable level of functionality. If that really were the case, then > I would strongly consider reverting everything related to NUMA that we > have just done during this dev cycle and not releasing it as is. > >> The difference is that the existing approach currently wouldn't allow >> splitting a numa node into more memory devices to allow >> plugging/unplugging them. > > There's no reason why we have to assume 1 memory slot per guest or > per node when booting the guest. If the user wants the ability to > unplug, they could set their XML config so the guest has arbitrary > slot granularity. eg if i have a guest > > - memory == 8 GB > - max-memory == 16 GB > - NUMA nodes == 4 > > Then we could allow them to specify 32 memory slots each 512 MB > in size. This would allow them to plug/unplug memory from NUMA > nodes in 512 MB granularity. Well, while this makes it pretty close to real hardware, the emulated one doesn't have a problem with plugging "dimms" of weird (non-power-of-2) sizing. And we are loosing flexibility due to that. > > Regards, > Daniel >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list