On 08/23/2010 04:16 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/23/2010 01:59 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 03:52:18PM +0200, Andre Przywara wrote:
According to the user-provided assignment bind the respective part
of the guest's memory to the given host node. This uses Linux'
mbind syscall (which is wrapped only in libnuma) to realize the
pinning right after the allocation.
Failures are not fatal, but produce a warning.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara<andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
>>> ...
Why is it not possible (or perhaps not desired) to change the binding
after the guest is started?
Sounds unflexible.
The solution is to introduce a monitor interface to later adjust the
pinning, allowing both changing the affinity only (only valid for
future fault-ins) and actually copying the memory (more costly).
This is just duplicating numactl.
Actually this is the next item on my list, but I wanted to bring up
the basics first to avoid recoding parts afterwards. Also I am not
(yet) familiar with the QMP protocol.
We really need a solution that lets a user use a tool like numactl
outside of the QEMU instance.
I fear that is not how it's meant to work with the Linux' NUMA API. In
opposite to the VCPU threads, which are externally visible entities
(PIDs), the memory should be private to the QEMU process. While you
can change the NUMA allocation policy of the _whole_ process, there is
no way to externally distinguish parts of the process' memory.
Although you could later (and externally) migrate already faulted
pages (via move_pages(2) and by looking in /proc/$$/numa_maps), you
would let an external tool interfere with QEMUs internal memory
management. Take for instance the change of the allocation policy
regarding the 1MB and 3.5-4GB holes. An external tool would have to
either track such changes or you simply could not change such things
in QEMU.
It's extremely likely that if you're doing NUMA pinning, you're also
doing large pages via hugetlbfs. numactl can already set policies for
files in hugetlbfs so all you need to do is have a separate hugetlbfs
file for each numa node.
Then you have all the flexibility of numactl and you can implement node
migration external to QEMU if you so desire.
So what is wrong with keeping that code in QEMU, which knows best
about the internals and already has flexible and mighty ways (command
line and QMP) of manipulating its behavior?
NUMA is a last-mile optimization. For the audience that cares about
this level of optimization, only providing an interface that allows a
small set of those optimizations to be used is unacceptable.
There's a very simple way to do this right and that's by adding
interfaces to QEMU that let's us work with existing tooling instead of
inventing new interfaces.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Regards,
Andre.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
