From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 3] libxl: take node distances into account during NUMA placement Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:50:54 +0100 Message-ID: <5081308E.4000004@eu.citrix.com> References: <1350602433.26152.106.camel@Solace> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1350602433.26152.106.camel@Solace> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Dario Faggioli Cc: Andre Przywara , Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , Juergen Gross , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 19/10/12 00:20, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 16:17 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Dario Faggioli >> wrote: >>> In fact, among placement candidates with the same number of nodes, the >>> closer the various nodes are to each others, the better the performances >>> for a domain placed there. >> Looks good overall -- my only worry is the N^2 nature of the >> algorithm. We're already doing some big combinatorial thing to >> generate the candidates, right? >> > It is, with N being the number of nodes, which we discussed thoroughly > already a couple of months ago, and reached consensus on the fact that N > will stay less than 8 for the next 5 (but probably even more) years. :-) > > In any case, if something really unexpected happens, and N jumps to > anything bigger than 16, the placement algorithm won't even start, and > we'll never reach this point!. Ah, right -- Yes, I think the "safety valve" was the thing I wanted to have in place. In that case: Acked-by: George Dunlap