On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:14:17AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:32:46AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> A PCI device can be associated with a specific NUMA node. Later, when
> a guest is pinned to one NUMA node the PCI device can be assigned on
> different NUMA node. This makes DMA transfers travel across nodes and
> thus results in suboptimal performance. We should expose the NUMA node
> locality for PCI devices so management applications can make better
> decisions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com>
> ---
>
> Notes:
> All the machines I have tried this on had only -1 in the
> numa_node file. From the kernel sources it seems that this is the
> default, so I'm not printing the <numa/> element into the XML in
> this case. But I'd like to hear your opinion.
Yes, I believe '-1' means that there is no NUMA locality info
available for the device, so it makes sense to skip this.
Confirmed in the kernel source
include/linux/numa.h:#define NUMA_NO_NODE (-1)
Is used when the ACPI tables don't specify any NUMA node for the
PCI device, or when the NUMA node is not online.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|