Re: [PATCH 0/8] RFC: vcpu pinning at qemu start

[Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>]

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 01:28:24PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> My main interest is in management tools being able to specify pinning
>>> set ups at VM creation time.
>>>
>>> As I said, it can be done through tools like taskset, but then you'd 
>>> have to know:
>>>  * when are the threads created
>>>  * which thread ids corresponds to each cpu
>>>
>>> And of course, for an amount of time, the threads will be running in a 
>>> "wrong" cpu, which may affect workloads running there. (which is a 
>>> case cpu pinning usually tries to address)
>> A management tool can start QEMU with -S to prevent any CPUs from 
>> running, query the VCPU=>thread id relationship (modifying info cpus 
>> would be a good thing to do for this), taskset, and then run 'cont' in 
>> the monitor if they desperately need this functionality.  However, I 
>> don't think the vast majority of people need this particular functionality.
> 
> I fully expected to have to run QEMU with -S and then use cont if I were
> todo CPU pinning from libvirt.
> 
> The only info I'd need to get is the  PID <-> vCPU mapping data. Then
> I can use regular Linux taskset capabilities from libvirt to assign the
> initial pCPU <-> vCPU mapping and finally run 'cont'.
> 
>> My feeling is that adding an interface to do this in QEMU encourages 
>> people to not use the existing Linux tools for this or worse yet, to 
>> think they can do a better job than Linux.  The whole reason this exists 
>> in Xen is that Xen's schedulers were incapable of doing CPU migration 
>> historically (which is no longer true since the credit scheduler).  It 
>> was necessary to specify pinning upon creation or you were stuck with 
>> round-robin placement.  So libvirt has APIs for this because they were 
>> part of the Xen API because it was needed to get reasonable performance 
>> at some point in time on Xen.  I don't think this behavior is useful for 
>> KVM though.  Just because Xen does it doesn't imply that we should do it.
> 
> I agree that adding QEMU commands for stuff which Linux already has APIs
> and tools is a bad idea. QEMU/KVM is much nicer to manage than Xen, 
> precisely because I can already use Linux APIs & process management tools.

I totally agree this is ideal, and I did not start this after thinking a 
little bit about
this situation. The main point is that we don't know when the cpus are 
created, and it does not seem to me that we will without a considerable 
amount of work.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/