Spurious "NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected" message on ARM

Spurious "NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected" message on ARM

[Ian Campbell]

Hi Dario,

When starting a guest on ARM I'm seeing (with no additional verbosity):
        libxl: notice: libxl_numa.c:494:libxl__get_numa_candidate: NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected

Which is a bit strong for a non-NUMA system.

Is there some hypercall we need to stub out or return -ENOSYS from to
cause this function to decide that this is not a NUMA system?

Does the same message occur on non-NUMA x86 systems?

Ian.

Re: Spurious "NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected" message on ARM

[Dario Faggioli]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1518 bytes --]

On ven, 2014-04-25 at 11:37 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Hi Dario,
> 
> When starting a guest on ARM I'm seeing (with no additional verbosity):
>         libxl: notice: libxl_numa.c:494:libxl__get_numa_candidate: NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected
> 
> Which is a bit strong for a non-NUMA system.
> 
Indeed.

> Is there some hypercall we need to stub out or return -ENOSYS from to
> cause this function to decide that this is not a NUMA system?
> 
> Does the same message occur on non-NUMA x86 systems?
> 
The message is printed inside libxl__get_numa_candidate() if no suitable
placement candidate is found. It does not happen on x86 non-NUMA boxes
as what happens there is that there is only 1 node, so the set of
possible combinations of nodes is made up of only one element, which is
deemed to be the best possible solution very quickly.

While I wonder why that does not happen on ARM, a sensible solution
would be to bail earlier, if we find only one NUMA node exist, for
whatever arch. Would that be ok? If yes, I can arrange a patch pretty
easily, I think.

For figuring out why the different behavior... Do you have the output of
`xl info -n' on that box handy, by any chance?

Regards,
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: 198 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Spurious "NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected" message on ARM

[Ian Campbell]

On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 11:55 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> While I wonder why that does not happen on ARM, a sensible solution
> would be to bail earlier, if we find only one NUMA node exist, for
> whatever arch. Would that be ok? If yes, I can arrange a patch pretty
> easily, I think.

I suppose if ARM is also reporting 1 node then for some reason this
check isn't hitting and moving it earlier won't help (not that it would
be a bad idea independently to optimise this a bit).

Perhaps ARM is reporting no NUMA nodes? The xl info -n output suggests
not but where else should I check.

> 
> For figuring out why the different behavior... Do you have the output of
> `xl info -n' on that box handy, by any chance?

Here you are:

# xl info -n
host                   : marilith-n0
release                : 3.14.0-arm-native-10322-g0903f4b
version                : #6 SMP Thu Apr 17 14:03:36 BST 2014
machine                : armv7l
nr_cpus                : 4
max_cpu_id             : 127
nr_nodes               : 1
cores_per_socket       : 1
threads_per_core       : 1
cpu_mhz                : 150
hw_caps                : 00000000:00000000:00000000:00000000:00000000:00000000:00000000:00000000
virt_caps              :
total_memory           : 8184
free_memory            : 6933
sharing_freed_memory   : 0
sharing_used_memory    : 0
outstanding_claims     : 0
free_cpus              : 0
cpu_topology           :
cpu:    core    socket     node
  0:       0        0        0
  1:       0        0        0
  2:       0        0        0
  3:       0        0        0
numa_info              :
node:    memsize    memfree    distances
   0:      4088       3861      20
xen_major              : 4
xen_minor              : 5
xen_extra              : -unstable
xen_version            : 4.5-unstable
xen_caps               : xen-3.0-armv7l 
xen_scheduler          : credit
xen_pagesize           : 4096
platform_params        : virt_start=0x200000
xen_changeset          : Thu Apr 24 16:14:47 2014 +0100 git:499282e-dirty
xen_commandline        : console=dtuart dtuart=/soc/serial@fff36000 dom0_mem=128M noreboot conswitch=x loglvl=all guest_loglvl_all
cc_compiler            : gcc (Debian 4.6.3-14) 4.6.3
cc_compile_by          : ianc
cc_compile_domain      : uk.xensource.com
cc_compile_date        : Fri Apr 25 13:38:05 BST 2014
xend_config_format     : 4

Re: Spurious "NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected" message on ARM

[Dario Faggioli]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2608 bytes --]

On lun, 2014-04-28 at 11:01 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 11:55 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > While I wonder why that does not happen on ARM, a sensible solution
> > would be to bail earlier, if we find only one NUMA node exist, for
> > whatever arch. Would that be ok? If yes, I can arrange a patch pretty
> > easily, I think.
> 
> I suppose if ARM is also reporting 1 node then for some reason this
> check isn't hitting and moving it earlier won't help (not that it would
> be a bad idea independently to optimise this a bit).
> 
Exactly. Honestly, I thought it was like that already, but I was
evidently mis-remembering. I'll do that as soon as we will have sorted
this out.

> Perhaps ARM is reporting no NUMA nodes? The xl info -n output suggests
> not but where else should I check.
> 
The output (which I removed) really looks similar to my non-NUMA x86
box.

As per what to check, in libxl__get_numa_candidate(), if it enters this
loop (and it should):

        for (comb_ok = comb_init(gc, &comb_iter, nr_suit_nodes, min_nodes);
             comb_ok;
             comb_ok = comb_next(comb_iter, nr_suit_nodes, min_nodes)) {

The only reason why it does not get to the end of the first iter (and
set cndt_found to 1) seems to be one of these if-s:

            /* If there is not enough memory in this combination, skip it
             * and go generating the next one... */
            nodes_free_memkb = nodemap_to_free_memkb(ninfo, &nodemap);
            if (min_free_memkb && nodes_free_memkb < min_free_memkb)
                continue;

            /* And the same applies if this combination is short in cpus */
            nodes_cpus = nodemap_to_nr_cpus(tinfo, nr_cpus, suitable_cpumap,
                                            &nodemap);
            if (min_cpus && nodes_cpus < min_cpus)
                continue;

With only 1 node, the first one should really be false, or we shouldn't
be here. The second is, I think, possible, but very unlikely (does your
guest have more vCPUs than the host has pCPUs?).

I'd be happy to have a look myself, but I don't have an ARM (cross)
build environment ready right now... Perhaps this is the chance to get
one, though... Do you want me to? (provided I can access that or a
similar box)

Regards,
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: 198 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Spurious "NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected" message on ARM

[Ian Campbell]

On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 11:01 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
[...]
> total_memory           : 8184
> free_memory            : 6933
[...]
> node:    memsize    memfree    distances
>    0:      4088       3861      20

I think we are missing some RAM here...

and I have now noticed that I only see this for guests which have more
RAM than this memfree value (+/- some slop). The guests succeed because
there is actually RAM available.

I think this is enough for me to now track down the cause on the
hypervisor side. Thanks for your input.

Ian.

Re: Spurious "NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected" message on ARM

[Andrew Cooper]

On 28/04/14 12:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 11:01 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> [...]
>> total_memory           : 8184
>> free_memory            : 6933
> [...]
>> node:    memsize    memfree    distances
>>    0:      4088       3861      20
> I think we are missing some RAM here...
>
> and I have now noticed that I only see this for guests which have more
> RAM than this memfree value (+/- some slop). The guests succeed because
> there is actually RAM available.
>
> I think this is enough for me to now track down the cause on the
> hypervisor side. Thanks for your input.
>
> Ian.

Do be aware that the memsize value is "number of pages on this node"
which includes IO mappings of non-ram regions, and as a result memfree
is mostly fictitious.

I raised this as a concern with the hwloc code, but without any
subsequent discussion.

~Andrew

Re: Spurious "NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected" message on ARM

[Dario Faggioli]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1632 bytes --]

On lun, 2014-04-28 at 13:15 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 28/04/14 12:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 11:01 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > [...]
> >> total_memory           : 8184
> >> free_memory            : 6933
> > [...]
> >> node:    memsize    memfree    distances
> >>    0:      4088       3861      20
> > I think we are missing some RAM here...
> >
> > and I have now noticed that I only see this for guests which have more
> > RAM than this memfree value (+/- some slop). The guests succeed because
> > there is actually RAM available.
> >
> > I think this is enough for me to now track down the cause on the
> > hypervisor side. Thanks for your input.
> >
> > Ian.
> 
> Do be aware that the memsize value is "number of pages on this node"
> which includes IO mappings of non-ram regions, and as a result memfree
> is mostly fictitious.
> 
> I raised this as a concern with the hwloc code, but without any
> subsequent discussion.
> 
There has been another discussion about discrepancies in total and free
memory reporting. ISTR, it was noticed at the time when I added the
support for some of these NUMA stuff in libvirt.

I don't have it handy right now... I'll see if I can fetch it back,
merge it with your observations in the hwloc thread and (re)start a
discussion about this.

Regards,
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: 198 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Spurious "NUMA placement failed, performance might be affected" message on ARM

[Dario Faggioli]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1181 bytes --]

On lun, 2014-04-28 at 12:30 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 11:01 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> [...]
> > total_memory           : 8184
> > free_memory            : 6933
> [...]
> > node:    memsize    memfree    distances
> >    0:      4088       3861      20
> 
> I think we are missing some RAM here...
> 
> and I have now noticed that I only see this for guests which have more
> RAM than this memfree value (+/- some slop). The guests succeed because
> there is actually RAM available.
> 
Oh, yes, that's the first 'if' being true then.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and make a patch for skipping all this in case
there is only 1 node.

> I think this is enough for me to now track down the cause on the
> hypervisor side. 
>
Indeed. From what you say, it looks like XEN_SYSCTL_numainfo is 'hiding'
something on ARM...

> Thanks for your input.
> 
:-)

Regards,
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: 198 bytes --]

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

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