From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Harper Subject: Re: numa=on broken Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:53:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20070401185328.GC28736@us.ibm.com> References: <20070401134629.GB28736@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org * Keir Fraser [2007-04-01 10:50]: > On 1/4/07 14:46, "Ryan Harper" wrote: > > >> I don't think that auto-ballooning is a particularly sensible setting for > >> serious use of Xen. I'd always advise to work out how much memory your dom0 > >> actually needs and make that a static allocation at boot time. But it is our > >> out-of-the-box default: another thing that needs explicit changing (via > >> dom0_mem= in this case). > > > > Right. It looks like then that it would make sense to leave numa off by > > default leaving the admin to specify both numa=on and a sensible > > dom0_mem in the absence of a mechanism for dom0 to hand back memory from > > a specific node, or some page migration mechanism. > > That's my thinking. I'll see about getting some numa=on testing mixed into > our regression tests, however. There's no reason not to run some proportion > of them with numa=on, although actually most of our test systems are not > NUMA (a few are though). Thanks. I should have a patchset for exposing the topology and heap information cooked up this week for post 3.0.5 consideration. -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx (512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253 ryanh@us.ibm.com