On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:35:50PM +0200, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> 
> I just come back from holiday.

Hope you had a good time :-)

> 
> 
> 
> >>Issue #1: The above code currently does not honor our 'hostnodes' option 
> >>and breaks when trying to use them together. 
> 
> mmm indeed. I think this can be improved. I'll try to check that next week.
> 
> 
> 
> >>Issue #2: We create one node per *virtual* socket, which means enabling 
> >>hugepages with more virtual sockets than physical numa nodes will die 
> >>with the error that the numa node doesn't exist. This should be fixable 
> >>as far as I can tell, as nothing really prevents us from putting them on 
> >>the same node? At least this used to work and I've already asked this 
> >>question at some point. You said the host kernel will try to map them, 
> >>yet it worked without issues before, so I'm still not sure about this. 
> >>Here's the conversation snippet: 
> 
> you can create more virtual numa node than physical, only if you don't define 
> "hostnodes" option.
> 
> (from my point of vue, it's totally useless, as the whole point of numa 
> option is to map virtual node to physical node, to avoid memory access 
> bottleneck)

Useless, yes, which is why I'm wondering whether this should be
supported/warned about/error...

> 
> if hostnodes is defined, you need to have physical numa node available (vm 
> with 2 numa node need host with 2 numa node)
> 
> With hugepage enabled, I have added a restriction to have hostnode defined, 
> because you want to be sure that memory is on same node.
> 
> 
>             # hostnodes
>             my $hostnodelists = $numa->{hostnodes};
>             if (defined($hostnodelists)) {
>                 my $hostnodes;
>                 foreach my $hostnoderange (@$hostnodelists) {
>                     my ($start, $end) = @$hostnoderange;
>                     $hostnodes .= ',' if $hostnodes;
>                     $hostnodes .= $start;
>                     $hostnodes .= "-$end" if defined($end);
>                     $end //= $start;
>                     for (my $i = $start; $i <= $end; ++$i ) {
>                         die "host NUMA node$i doesn't exist\n" if ! -d 
> "/sys/devices/system/node/node$i/";
>                     }
>                 }
> 
>                 # policy
>                 my $policy = $numa->{policy};
>                 die "you need to define a policy for hostnode $hostnodes\n" 
> if !$policy;
>                 $mem_object .= ",host-nodes=$hostnodes,policy=$policy";
>             } else {
>                 die "numa hostnodes need to be defined to use hugepages" if 
> $conf->{hugepages};
>             }
> 
> 
> >>Issue #3: Actually just an extension to #2: we currently cannot enable 
> >>NUMA at all (even without hugepages) when there are more virtual sockets 
> >>than physical numa nodes, and this used to work. The big question is 
> >>now: does this even make sense? Or should we tell users not to do this? 
> 
> That's strange, it should work if you don't defined hugepages and hostnodes 
> option(in numaX)

Actually this one was my own faulty configuration, sorry.

_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com
http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel

Reply via email to