Re: PV-vNUMA issue: topology is misinterpreted by the guest

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1391 bytes --]

On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 16:13 +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 16/07/15 11:32, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > 
> > Anyway, is there anything we can do to fix or workaround things?
> 
> This thread has gotten a bit long...
> 
Yep, indeed... :-(

> For Linux I would like to see:
> 
> 1. No support for NUMA in PV guests -- if you want new MM features in a
> guest use HVM.
> 
Wow... Really? What about all the code we have in libxl and Xen to deal
exactly with that?  What about making it possible to configure vNUMA for
Dom0?

:-O

> 2. For HVM guests, use the existing hardware interfaces to present NUMA
> topology.  i.e., CPUID, ACPI tables etc.  This will work for both kernel
> and userspace and both will see the same topology.
> 
> This also has the advantage that any hypervisor/toolstack work will also
> be applicable to other guests (e.g., Windows).
> 
Yeah, indeed. That's the downside of Juergen's "Linux scheduler
approach". But the issue is there, even without taking vNUMA into
account, and I think something like that would really help (only for
Dom0, and Linux guests, of course).

Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel