[libvirt] [PATCH v4 2/5] numa: describe siblings distances within cells
Jim Fehlig
jfehlig at suse.com
Fri Oct 6 14:49:46 UTC 2017
On 09/08/2017 08:47 AM, Wim Ten Have wrote:
> From: Wim ten Have <wim.ten.have at oracle.com>
>
> Add libvirtd NUMA cell domain administration functionality to
> describe underlying cell id sibling distances in full fashion
> when configuring HVM guests.
May I suggest wording this paragraph as:
Add support for describing sibling vCPU distances within a domain's vNUMA cell
configuration.
> Schema updates are made to docs/schemas/cputypes.rng enforcing domain
> administration to follow the syntax below the numa cell id and
> docs/schemas/basictypes.rng to add "numaDistanceValue".
I'm not sure this paragraph is needed in the commit message.
> A minimum value of 10 representing the LOCAL_DISTANCE as 0-9 are
> reserved values and can not be used as System Locality Distance Information.
> A value of 20 represents the default setting of REMOTE_DISTANCE
> where a maximum value of 255 represents UNREACHABLE.
>
> Effectively any cell sibling can be assigned a distance value where
> practically 'LOCAL_DISTANCE <= value <= UNREACHABLE'.
>
> [below is an example of a 4 node setup]
>
> <cpu>
> <numa>
> <cell id='0' cpus='0' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> <distances>
> <sibling id='0' value='10'/>
> <sibling id='1' value='21'/>
> <sibling id='2' value='31'/>
> <sibling id='3' value='41'/>
> </distances>
> </cell>
> <cell id='1' cpus='1' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> <distances>
> <sibling id='0' value='21'/>
> <sibling id='1' value='10'/>
> <sibling id='2' value='31'/>
> <sibling id='3' value='41'/>
> </distances>
> </cell>
> <cell id='2' cpus='2' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> <distances>
> <sibling id='0' value='31'/>
> <sibling id='1' value='21'/>
> <sibling id='2' value='10'/>
> <sibling id='3' value='21'/>
> </distances>
> <cell id='3' cpus='3' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> <distances>
> <sibling id='0' value='41'/>
> <sibling id='1' value='31'/>
> <sibling id='2' value='21'/>
> <sibling id='3' value='10'/>
> </distances>
> </cell>
> </numa>
> </cpu>
How would this look when having more than one cpu in a cell? I suppose something
like
<cpu>
<numa>
<cell id='0' cpus='0-3' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
<distances>
<sibling id='0' value='10'/>
<sibling id='1' value='10'/>
<sibling id='2' value='10'/>
<sibling id='3' value='10'/>
<sibling id='4' value='21'/>
<sibling id='5' value='21'/>
<sibling id='6' value='21'/>
<sibling id='7' value='21'/>
</distances>
</cell>
<cell id='1' cpus='4-7' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
<distances>
<sibling id='0' value='21'/>
<sibling id='1' value='21'/>
<sibling id='2' value='21'/>
<sibling id='3' value='21'/>
<sibling id='4' value='10'/>
<sibling id='5' value='10'/>
<sibling id='6' value='10'/>
<sibling id='7' value='10'/>
</distances>
</cell>
</numa>
</cpu>
In the V3 thread you mentioned "And to reduce even more we could also
remove LOCAL_DISTANCES as they make a constant factor where; (cell_id ==
sibling_id)". In the above example cell_id 1 == sibling_id 1, but it is not
LOCAL_DISTANCE.
> Whenever a sibling id the cell LOCAL_DISTANCE does apply and for any
> sibling id not being covered a default of REMOTE_DISTANCE is used
> for internal computations.
I'm having a hard time understanding this sentence...
I didn't look closely at the patch since I'd like to understand how multi-cpu
cells are handled before doing so.
Regards,
Jim
More information about the libvir-list
mailing list