On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:28:41AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:26:46AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 02:34:37PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > On 2020/6/25 下午9:57, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > These patches are not ready to be merged because I was unable to measure a > > > > performance improvement. I'm publishing them so they are archived in case > > > > someone picks up this work again in the future. > > > > > > > > The goal of these patches is to allocate virtqueues and driver state from the > > > > device's NUMA node for optimal memory access latency. Only guests with a vNUMA > > > > topology and virtio devices spread across vNUMA nodes benefit from this. In > > > > other cases the memory placement is fine and we don't need to take NUMA into > > > > account inside the guest. > > > > > > > > These patches could be extended to virtio_net.ko and other devices in the > > > > future. I only tested virtio_blk.ko. > > > > > > > > The benchmark configuration was designed to trigger worst-case NUMA placement: > > > > * Physical NVMe storage controller on host NUMA node 0 > > It's possible that numa is not such a big deal for NVMe. > And it's possible that bios misconfigures ACPI reporting NUMA placement > incorrectly. > I think that the best thing to try is to use a ramdisk > on a specific numa node. Using ramdisk is an interesting idea, thanks. Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
