Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] numa: warn if numa 'mem' option or default RAM splitting between nodes is used.
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:10:37 +0000
Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 05:58:35PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 16:39:38 +0000
> Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 05:30:25PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > Ammend -numa option docs and print warnings if 'mem' option or
default RAM
> > > splitting between nodes is used. It's intended to discourage users
from using
> > > configuration that allows only to fake NUMA on guest side while leading
> > > to reduced performance of the guest due to inability to properly
configure
> > > VM's RAM on the host.
> > >
> > > In NUMA case, it's recommended to always explicitly configure guest
RAM
> > > using -numa node,memdev={backend-id} option.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo(a)redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > numa.c | 5 +++++
> > > qemu-options.hx | 12 ++++++++----
> > > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c
> > > index 3875e1e..c6c2a6f 100644
> > > --- a/numa.c
> > > +++ b/numa.c
> > > @@ -121,6 +121,8 @@ static void parse_numa_node(MachineState *ms,
NumaNodeOptions *node,
> > >
> > > if (node->has_mem) {
> > > numa_info[nodenr].node_mem = node->mem;
> > > + warn_report("Parameter -numa node,mem is obsolete,"
> > > + " use -numa node,memdev instead");
> >
> > I don't think we should do this. Libvirt isn't going to stop using
this
> > option in the near term. When users see warnings like this in logs
> well when it was the only option available libvirt had no other choice,
> but since memdev became available libvirt should try to use it whenever
> possible.
As we previously discussed, it is not possible for libvirt to use it
in all cases.
>
> > they'll often file bugs reports thinking something is broken which is
> > not the case here.
> It's the exact purpose of the warning, to force user asking questions
> and fix configuration, since he/she obviously not getting NUMA benefits
> and/or performance-wise
That's only useful if it is possible to do something about the problem.
Libvirt wants to use the new option but it can't due to the live migration
problems. So this simply leads to bug reports that will end up marked
as CANTFIX.
The problem could be solved by user though, by reconfiguring and
restarting
domain since it's impossible to (at least as it stands now wrt migration).
I don't believe libvirt actually suffers from the performance
problem
you describe wrt lack of pinning. When we attempt to pin guest NUMA
nodes to host NUMA nodes, libvirt *will* use "memdev". IIUC, we
use "mem" in the case where there /no/ requested pinning of guest
NUMA nodes, and so we're not suffering from the limitations of "mem"
in that case.
What would be the use-case for not pinning numa nodes?
If user isn't asking for pinning, VM would run with degraded performance and
it would be better of being non-numa.
Even if user doesn't ask for pinning, non-pinned memdev (for new VMs where
available) could be used as well. Users of 'mem' with new QEMU will see the
warning
and probably think about if they are configured VM correctly.
Desire to deprecate 'mem' at least for new machines is to be able to prevent user
from creating broken configs and manage all RAM in the same manner (frontend/backend).
(I can't do it for old machine types but for new it is possible).
> I have to disagree here, I don't like ducking our head and
ignoring broken
> configuration when there is working alternative. As end user I'd hate that
> problem was hidden from me.
Regards,
Daniel