svn commit: r272800 - head/sys/x86/acpica

[Adrian Chadd]

On 9 October 2014 11:23, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not like it.  Sorry for not looking at the web thing, I have very
> little time.
>
> It never was an intention that one proximity domain reported by ACPI
> was mapped to single VM domain.  VM could split domains (in terms of
> vm_domains) further for other reasons.  Main motivation is that there
> is 1:1 relations between domain/page queues/page queues locks/pagedaemons.
>
> I have patches in WIP stage which split firmware proximity domains
> further, to decrease congestion on the page queue locks.  I wrote about
> this in the pgsql performance report.
>
> The short version is that there is/will be N:1 relation between VM domains
> and proximity domains (which is reported by ACPI for devices).

Hi,

Well, we'll have to come up with an alternate design for all of this then.

If we're going to actively define VM domains to be more than 1:1 VM
domain to proximity domain then we're going to have to introduce
proximity domains as a separate construct to the VM/NUMA system.

(This is all fallout from this stuff not really being well defined and
multiple people having differing ideas of what things may mean.)

So let's flesh out what that's going to look like so we can mutate
this interface and the general NUMA side of things into something
that's useful. It may be enough to store the PXM map (renumbered to
origin from 0 and be non-sparse) and then have a different mapping
from PXM to VM domain.



-a