On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:03:53AM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>Adding CC AutoNUMA folks:
>
>Paolo said that:
>
>> Pinning memory to host NUMA nodes is not implemented. Something like
>> AutoNUMA would be able to balance the memory the right way.
>>
>> Paolo
>
>And Eduardo said that:
>> I had plans
Adding CC AutoNUMA folks:
Paolo said that:
> Pinning memory to host NUMA nodes is not implemented. Something like
> AutoNUMA would be able to balance the memory the right way.
>
> Paolo
And Eduardo said that:
> I had plans to implement a mechanism to allow external tools to
> implement manual
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:47:52PM +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> On 05/16/2013 08:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 16/05/2013 11:50, Wanlong Gao ha scritto:
> >> To see that this 300M memory is allocated from host node0 again, but not
> >> host node1 as
> >> I expected.
> >>
> >> We think that QEM
On 05/16/2013 08:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 16/05/2013 11:50, Wanlong Gao ha scritto:
>> To see that this 300M memory is allocated from host node0 again, but not
>> host node1 as
>> I expected.
>>
>> We think that QEMU can't handled this numa memory allocation well, and it
>> will cause the
Il 16/05/2013 11:50, Wanlong Gao ha scritto:
> To see that this 300M memory is allocated from host node0 again, but not host
> node1 as
> I expected.
>
> We think that QEMU can't handled this numa memory allocation well, and it
> will cause the
> cross node memory access performance regression.
Hi,
We just met a problem of QEMU memory allocation.
Here is the description:
On my host, I have two nodes,
# numactl -H
available: 2 nodes (0-1)
node 0 cpus: 0 2
node 0 size: 4010 MB
node 0 free: 3021 MB
node 1 cpus: 1 3
node 1 size: 4030 MB
node 1 free: 2881 MB
node distances:
node 0 1
0
