This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4.1 NUMA support

To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4.1 NUMA support
From: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:35:32 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Papagiannis Anastasios <apapag@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:36:28 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4AFD7A6F.7020708@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <bd4f4a54-5269-42d8-b16d-cbdfaeeba361@default> <4AF82F12.6040400@xxxxxxx> <4AF82FD8.6020409@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AFD69D9.4090204@xxxxxxx> <4FA716B1526C7C4DB0375C6DADBC4EA342A71C17C9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AFD7A6F.7020708@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcpkdfVdf/upXIyKQg2u8/2ICN3nQwAAJQEA
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4.1 NUMA support
> Ian Pratt wrote:
> > In the case where a VM is asking for more vCPUs there are pCPUs in a
> node we should contain the guest to multiple nodes. (I presume we favour
> nodes according to the number of vCPUs they already have committed to
> them?)
> Seems like CPU load might be a better measure.  Xen doesn't calculate
> load currently, but it's on my list of things to do.

I'd rather get this stuff fixed now than wait for the new scheduler.

It's not clear that instantaneous CPU load is any better than just counting the 
number of vCPUs. The XCP xapi stack also records good historical data, and 
would be in a better position to do the placement. Further work.


Xen-devel mailing list