Xen on NUMA Machines: Difference between revisions
m (moved Xen NUMA Introduction to Xen on NUMA Machines: This page will become the gateway for the whole "Xen on NUMA" topic and category, so make the title reflect that) |
Lars.kurth (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (28 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= |
= What is NUMA ? = |
||
'''Non-Uniform Memory Access''' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Uniform_Memory_Access NUMA]) means that memory accessing times of a program running on a CPU depends on the relative distance between that CPU and that memory. In fact, most of the NUMA systems are built in such a way that processors have their local memory, on which they can operate very fast. On the other hand, getting and storing data from and on remote memory (that is, memory local to some other processor) is quite more complex and slow. NUMA machines are becoming more and more common. Some examples of NUMA boxes/architectures are: |
|||
== What is NUMA ? == |
|||
* dual (or more) [http://products.amd.com/pages/OpteronCPUDetail.aspx?id=489&f1=&f2=&f3=Yes&f4=&f5=&f6=&f7=&f8=&f9=&f10=&f11=& 2376 Opteron] solutions by AMD |
|||
Having to deal with a '''Non-Uniform Memory Access''' ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Uniform_Memory_Access NUMA]) machine is becoming more and more common. This is true no matter whether you are part of a research center with access to one of the first [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8392392.stm Intel SCC]-based machines, a virtual machine hosting provider with a bunch of dual [http://products.amd.com/pages/OpteronCPUDetail.aspx?id=489&f1=&f2=&f3=Yes&f4=&f5=&f6=&f7=&f8=&f9=&f10=&f11=& 2376 AMD Opteron] pieces of iron in your server farm, or even just a Xen developer using a dual socket [http://ark.intel.com/products/47925/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5620-(12M-Cache-2_40-GHz-5_86-GTs-Intel-QPI) E5620 Xeon] based test-box. Just very quickly, NUMA means the memory accessing times of a program running on a CPU depends on the relative distance between that CPU and that memory. In fact, most of the NUMA systems are built in such a way that processors have their local memory, on which they can operate very fast. On the other hand, getting and storing data from and on remote memory (that is, memory local to some other processor) is quite more complex and slow. |
|||
* dual (or more) [http://ark.intel.com/products/47925/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5620-(12M-Cache-2_40-GHz-5_86-GTs-Intel-QPI) E5620 Xeon] solutions by Intel |
|||
* the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8392392.stm Intel SCC] architecture |
|||
While on Linux (bare metal, so, no Xen), a pretty easy way to check whether your box is a NUMA one, and find out all its characteristics is the following: |
|||
To check whether or not your machine is NUMA, try tthe '''xl info -n''' command. Here it is (some of) what it says on a 2 NUMA nodes machine with 8 cores each (pCPUs 0-7 ==> Node #0, pCPUs 8-15 ==> Node #1): |
|||
<pre> |
|||
# numactl --hardware |
|||
available: 2 nodes (0-1) |
|||
node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 |
|||
node 0 size: 6055 MB |
|||
node 0 free: 5968 MB |
|||
node 1 cpus: 4 5 6 7 12 13 14 15 |
|||
node 1 size: 5977 MB |
|||
node 1 free: 5873 MB |
|||
node distances: |
|||
node 0 1 |
|||
0: 10 20 |
|||
1: 20 10 |
|||
</pre> |
|||
== NUMA Performance Impact == |
|||
NUMA awareness becomes very important as soon as many domains start running memory-intensive workloads on a shared host. In fact, the cost of accessing non node-local memory locations is very high, and the performance degradation is likely to be noticeable. For example, let's look at a memory-intensive benchmark with a bunch of competing VMs running concurrently on an host with 2 NUMA nodes. |
|||
The benchmark being run is [http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/ SpecJBB2005]. Host is a 16 pCPUs, 2-NUMA nodes Xeon, with 12GB RAM (2GB of which reserved for Dom0). Linux kernel for dom0 was 3.2, Xen was xen-unstable at the time of the benchmarking (i.e., more or less Xen 4.2). Guests have 4 vCPUs and 1GB of RAM each. Numbers come from running the benchmark on an increasing (1 to 8 ) number of Xen PV-guests at the same time, and repeating each run 5 times for each of the VMs configurations below: |
|||
* ''default'' is what was happening by default prior to Xen 4.2, i.e., no vCPU pinning at all; |
|||
* ''pinned'' means VM#1 was pinned on NODE#0 after being created. This implies its memory was striped on both the nodes, but it can only run on the fist one; |
|||
* ''all memory local'' is the best possible case, i.e., VM#1 was created on NODE#0 and kept there. That implies all its memory accesses are local; |
|||
* ''all memory remote'' is the worst possible case, i.e., VM#1 was created on NODE#0 and then moved (by explicitly pinning its pCPUs) on NODE#1. That implies all its memory accesses are remote. |
|||
In all the experiments, it is only VM#1 that was pinned/moved. All the other VMs have their memory "striped" between the two nodes and are free to run everywhere. The final score achieved by SpecJBB on VM#1 is reported below. As SpecJBB output is in terms of "business transactions per second (bops)", higher values correspond to better results. |
|||
http://xenbits.xen.org/people/dariof/images/blog/NUMA_1/kernbench_avgstd2.png |
|||
First of all, notice how small the standard deviation is for all the runs: this confirms SpecJBB is a good benchmark. The most interesting lines to look at and compare are the purple and the blue ones. In fact, that clearly shows how much getting NUMA right matters, even in such a small box! |
|||
The full set of results, with plots about all the statistical properties of the data set, can be found [http://xenbits.xen.org/people/dariof/benchmarks/specjbb2005-numa/ here]. |
|||
= NUMA and Xen = |
|||
Xen is already capable of running on NUMA machines. First of all, while on Xen (well, on Dom0), figuring out the NUMA characteristics of the box goes by running '''xl info -n'''. Its output, on a 2 NUMA nodes machine, with 8 cores each (pCPUs 0-7 ==> Node #0, pCPUs 8-15 ==> Node #1) is as follows: |
|||
<pre> |
<pre> |
||
# xl info -n |
# xl info -n |
||
host : Zhaman |
host : Zhaman |
||
release : 3. |
release : 3.10.0 |
||
version : #1 SMP Mon |
version : #1 SMP Mon Jul 8 23:16:42 UTC 2013 |
||
machine : x86_64 |
machine : x86_64 |
||
nr_cpus : 16 |
nr_cpus : 16 |
||
max_cpu_id : 63 |
|||
nr_nodes : 2 |
nr_nodes : 2 |
||
cores_per_socket : 4 |
cores_per_socket : 4 |
||
threads_per_core : 2 |
threads_per_core : 2 |
||
cpu_mhz : 2394 |
|||
... |
|||
hw_caps : bfebfbff:2c100800:00000000:00003f00:029ee3ff:00000000:00000001:00000000 |
|||
virt_caps : hvm hvm_directio |
|||
total_memory : 12285 |
total_memory : 12285 |
||
free_memory : |
free_memory : 11604 |
||
... |
|||
free_cpus : 0 |
|||
cpu_topology : |
cpu_topology : |
||
cpu: core socket node |
cpu: core socket node |
||
| Line 39: | Line 80: | ||
14: 10 0 1 |
14: 10 0 1 |
||
15: 10 0 1 |
15: 10 0 1 |
||
numa_info : |
numa_info : |
||
node: memsize memfree distances |
|||
0: 6144 5754 10,20 |
|||
1: 6720 5850 20,10 |
|||
... |
... |
||
</pre> |
</pre> |
||
Xen deals with NUMA by assigning each domain a ''node affinity'', which is the set of nodes of the host from which memory for that domain is allocated (in equal parts). This node affinity is liked to the subset of physical CPUs in the host the domain can or prefers to run. Acting like this, in fact, maximizes the probability of local memory accesses. |
|||
== Why Caring ? == |
|||
== NUMA and vCPU pinning == |
|||
NUMA awareness becomes very important as soon as many domains start running memory-intensive workloads on a shared host. In fact, the cost of accessing non node-local memory locations is very high, and the performance degradation is likely to be noticeable. |
|||
At domain creation time, Xen constructs a domain's node affinity basing on what nodes the pCPUs to which the domain's vCPUs are pinned belong to. If no vCPU to pCPU pinning is specified at creation time (e.g., via the xl config file), what happens is described in the following section. To specify a vCPU pinning during domain creation, one should use the '''cpus="..."''' config option. For example, the excerpt below would create a 4 vCPU guest, with 1024 Mb of RAM, and all the 4 vCPUs will be pinned to pCPUs 0-3. |
|||
For example, let's look at a memory-intensive benchmark with a bunch of competing VMs running concurrently on a NUMA host. The plots below show what happened in such a case on a 2 nodes system. |
|||
<pre> |
|||
... |
|||
vcpus = '4' |
|||
memory = '1024' |
|||
cpus = "0-3" |
|||
... |
|||
</pre> |
|||
From a NUMA perspective, if pCPUs 0 to 3 belong all to the same NUMA node (say NUMA node 0), that means the node affinity of the domain will be set to node 0, and all its memory will be allocated on there. |
|||
== NUMA and cpupools == |
|||
The benchmark is [http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/ SpecJBB2005], under the assumption that it will generate quite a bit of stress on the memory subsystem, which turned out to be the case. Host is a 16 CPUs, 2-NUMA nodes, Xeon based system with 12GB RAM (2GB of which reserved for Dom0). Linux kernel for dom0 was 3.2, Xen was xen-unstable at the time of the benchmarking (i.e., more or less Xen 4.2). Guests have 4 vCPUs and 1GB of RAM each. Numbers come from running the benchmark on an increasing (1 to 8 ) number of Xen PV-guests at the same time, and repeating each run 5 times for each of the VMs configurations below: |
|||
[[Cpupools_Howto|Cpupools]] can also come handy in a NUMA system, especially if very large. In fact, they guarantee an even more strict partitioning and isolation than vCPU pinning. When a domain is created inside a cpupool, its node affinity is set to only the node(s) to which the pCPUs in the pool belong to. Have a look at how [[Cpupools_Howto#Using_cpupool-numa-split|cpupool-numa-split]] works. |
|||
* ''default'' is the '''old''' (i.e., pre Xen 4.2) defaul Xen and xl behaviour: no vCPU pinning at all; |
|||
* ''pinned'' means VM#1 was pinned on NODE#0 after being created. This implies its memory was striped on both the nodes, but it can only run on the fist one; |
|||
* ''all memory local'' (best case) means VM#1 was created on NODE#0 and kept there. That implies all its memory accesses are local, and we thus call it the the best case; |
|||
* ''all memory remote'' (worst case) means VM#1 was created on NODE#0 and then moved (by explicitly pinning its sCPUs) on NODE#1. That implies all its memory accesses are remote, and we thus call it the worst case. |
|||
== Automatic NUMA Placement == |
|||
In all the experiments, it is only VM#1 that was pinned/moved. All the other VMs have their memory "striped" between the two nodes and are free to run everywhere. The final score achieved by SpecJBB on VM#1 is reported below. As SpecJBB output is in terms of "business transactions per second (bops)", higher values correspond to better results. |
|||
What happens at domain creation by default (i.e., if no '''cpus="..."''' or '''pool="..."''' option is present in config file), with respect to NUMA, varies (unfortunately) between the different Xen releases and toolstack used. |
|||
http://xenbits.xen.org/people/dariof/images/blog/NUMA_1/kernbench_avgstd2.png |
|||
Starting from [[Xen_4.2_Feature_List|Xen 4.2]], both [[XL]] and [[XEND|XenD]] toolstacks try to "guess" on which node(s) the domain could fit best. In fact, optimally fitting a set of VMs on the NUMA nodes of an host is an incarnation of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing_problem Bin Packing Problem], and therefore, an is what is used in both the toolstacks, [[XEND|XenD]] and [[XL]] (although not the same heuristics). The basic idea is as follows: ''among the node (or set of nodes) that have enough free memory and enough physical CPUs to accommodate the domain, the one with the smallest number of vCPUs already running there is chosen''. |
|||
First of all, notice how small the standard deviation is for all the runs: this just confirms SpecJBB is a good benchmark for our purposes. The most interesting lines to look at and compare are the red and the blue ones. Evidence is there that things can improve quite a bit, even on such a small box, especially in presence of heavy load (6 to 8 VMs). Look also at the percent increase in performance of each run with respect to the worst case (all memory remote): |
|||
A more detailed description of automatic NUMA placement is available in the [http://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/xl-numa-placement.html in tree documentation], or [[Automatic_NUMA_Placement|in this page]]. Some "history", and the roadmap for future improvement to automatic NUMA placement is available [[Xen_NUMA_Roadmap#Automatic_VM_placement|here]]. |
|||
http://xenbits.xen.org/people/dariof/kernbench_avg2.png |
|||
=== Automatic NUMA Placement and Migration === |
|||
This second graph makes even more clear how NUMA placement is accountable for a ~10% to 20% (depending on the load) impact on performance. The default Xen behavior is certainly not as bad as it could be: default almost always manage in getting ~10% better performance than the worst case. Also, although pinning can help in keeping performance consistent, it doesn't always yield an improvement (and when it does, it is only by few percent points). There is a ~10% performance increase to gain (and even more, in heavy loaded cases), if we manage in getting default to be close enough to all memory local, and that is why we should care about NUMA (The full set of results, with plots about all the statistical properties of the data can be found [http://xenbits.xen.org/people/dariof/benchmarks/specjbb2005-numa/ here]). |
|||
From the migration target host perspective, migration is just a kind of special form of domain creation. Therefore, unless the config file (received from the source target) says otherwise, automatic NUMA placement just takes place normally, exactly as it happens with new domains. That means there is '''no guarantee''' for the final decision from the placing algorithm on the target machine to be "compatible" with the one made on the source machine at initial domain creation time. For instance, if the domain fits in just one node and is placed there on the source host, it can well end up being split on two or more nodes when migrated on the target host (and the vice-versa). |
|||
== NUMA and Xen == |
|||
Currently this is considered acceptable, especially as there is not way to expose any virtual NUMA topology to the VM itself. As soon as some support for that will be introduced, this behavior might change accordingly. |
|||
The Xen hypervisor already deals with NUMA in a number of ways. For example, each domain has its own ''node affinity'', which is the set of NUMA nodes of the host from which memory for that domain is allocated (in equal parts). That becomes very important as soon as many domains start running memory-intensive workloads on a shared host. In fact, as soon as the majority of the memory accesses become remote, the degradation in performance is likely to be noticeable. An effective technique to deal with this architecture in a virtualization environment is virtual CPU (vCPU) pinning. In fact, if a domain can only run on a subset of the host’s physical CPUs (pCPUs), it is very easy to turn all its memory accesses into local ones. |
|||
=== Automatic NUMA Placement and Virtual Topology === |
|||
Actually, this is exactly what Xen does by default. At domain creation time, it constructs the domain's node affinity basing on what nodes the pCPUs to which the domain's vCPUs are pinned belong to (provided the domain specifies some pinning in the config file!). So, something like the below, sssuming CPUs #0 to #3 belongs to the same NUMA node, will ensure the domain will get all its vCPUs and memory from that node: |
|||
Currently (i.e., up to Xen 4.4) there is no way for a domain --either dom0 or domU-- to have a virtual NUMA topology. As soon as this capability will be introduced (and it is indeed under development), that may affect the automatic placement. See the status and the roadmap [[Xen_NUMA_Roadmap#Virtual_NUMA_.28support_for_NUMA_guests.29|here]]. |
|||
<pre> |
|||
... |
|||
vcpus = '4' |
|||
memory = '1024' |
|||
cpus = "0-3" |
|||
... |
|||
</pre> |
|||
== NUMA Aware Scheduling == |
|||
This is quite effective, to the point that, starting from Xen 4.2, both the '''XenD''' and '''libxl'''/'''xl''' based toolstacks, if there is no vCPU pinning in the config file, try to figure it out on its own, and pin the vCPUs there! |
|||
NUMA aware scheduling, as it has been included in Xen 4.3, means that it is possible for vCPUs of a domain to just '''prefer''' to run on the pCPUs of some NUMA node. The vCPUs will still be allowed, though, to run on every pCPU, guaranteed much more flexibility than having to use pinning. |
|||
= Automatic NUMA Placement = |
|||
More details about the solution adopted for NUMA aware scheduling in [[Xen_4.3_Feature_List|Xen 4.3]] is available [[Xen_4.3_NUMA_Aware_Scheduling|in this page]]. |
|||
If no '''cpus="..."''' option is specified in the config file, Xen tries to figure out on its own on which node(s) the domain could fit best. It is worthwhile noting that optimally fitting a set of VMs on the NUMA nodes of an host is an incarnation of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing_problem Bin Packing Problem]. As such problem is known to be NP-hard, we will be using some heuristics. |
|||
== Querying Memory Distribution == |
|||
So, among the node (or set of nodes) that have enough free memory and enough physical CPUs to accommodate the domain, the one with the smallest number of vCPUs already running there is chosen. The domain is the ''placed'' there, just by pinning '''all''' its vCPUs to '''all''' the pCPUs belonging to the node itself. |
|||
Up to Xen 4.4, there is no easy way to figure out how much memory from each domain has been allocated on each NUMA node in the host. A workaround to that, is exploiting one of the Xen debug keys, by issueing the following commands: |
|||
== NUMA Placement in xl == |
|||
<pre> |
|||
# xl debug-keys u |
|||
# xl dmesg | tail -n40 |
|||
</pre> |
|||
A possible output is as follows: |
|||
<pre> |
|||
(XEN) 'u' pressed -> dumping numa info (now-0x3F5:9821EF14) |
|||
(XEN) idx0 -> NODE0 start->1720320 size->1572864 free->1473152 |
|||
(XEN) phys_to_nid(00000001a4001000) -> 0 should be 0 |
|||
(XEN) idx1 -> NODE1 start->0 size->1720320 free->1235505 |
|||
(XEN) phys_to_nid(0000000000001000) -> 1 should be 1 |
|||
(XEN) CPU0 -> NODE0 |
|||
(XEN) CPU1 -> NODE0 |
|||
(XEN) CPU2 -> NODE0 |
|||
(XEN) CPU3 -> NODE0 |
|||
(XEN) CPU4 -> NODE0 |
|||
(XEN) CPU5 -> NODE0 |
|||
(XEN) CPU6 -> NODE0 |
|||
(XEN) CPU7 -> NODE0 |
|||
(XEN) CPU8 -> NODE1 |
|||
(XEN) CPU9 -> NODE1 |
|||
(XEN) CPU10 -> NODE1 |
|||
(XEN) CPU11 -> NODE1 |
|||
(XEN) CPU12 -> NODE1 |
|||
(XEN) CPU13 -> NODE1 |
|||
(XEN) CPU14 -> NODE1 |
|||
(XEN) CPU15 -> NODE1 |
|||
(XEN) Memory location of each domain: |
|||
(XEN) Domain 0 (total: 130998): |
|||
(XEN) Node 0: 62804 |
|||
(XEN) Node 1: 68194 |
|||
(XEN) Domain 1 (total: 262144): |
|||
(XEN) Node 0: 0 |
|||
(XEN) Node 1: 262144 |
|||
</pre> |
|||
In this case, Domain 0 has 62804 pages allocated on NUMA node 0, and 68194 on node 1. On the other hand, Domain 1 has all its 262144 pages allocated out of node 1. |
|||
In some more details, if using libxl (and, of course, xl), and Xen >= 4.2, the NUMA automatic placement works as follows. First of all the nodes (or the sets of nodes) that have enough free memory and enough pCPUs are found. The idea is to find a spot for the domain with at least as much free memory as it has configured to have, and as much pCPUs as it has vCPUs. After that, the actual decision on which node to pick happens accordingly to the following heuristics: |
|||
A more straightforward mechanism for querying on what node(s) domains' memory is allocated is under development, and will (probably) be available in Xen 4.5. |
|||
= NUMA in Other Virtualization Platforms = |
|||
* in case more than one node is necessary, solutions involving fewer nodes are considered better. In case two (or more) suitable solutions span the same number of nodes, |
|||
* the node(s) with a smaller number of vCPUs runnable on them (due to previous placement and/or plain vCPU pinning) are considered better. In case the same number of vCPUs can run on two (or more) node(s), |
|||
* the node(s) with with the greatest amount of free memory is considered to be the best one. |
|||
Some information on how NUMA is handled in VMWare virtualization solutions can be found here: |
|||
As of now (Xen 4.2) there is no way to interact with the placement mechanism, for example for modifying the heuristic it is driven by. Of course, if vCPU pinning or [[Xen_4.2:_cpupools|cpupools]] are manually setup (look at the [[Tuning]] page), no automatic placement will happen, and the user's requests are honored. |
|||
* [http://pubs.vmware.com/vsphere-4-esx-vcenter/index.jsp?topic=/com.vmware.vsphere.resourcemanagement.doc_41/using_numa_systems_with_esx_esxi/c_vmware_numa_optimization_algorithms.html "Using NUMA Systems with ESX/ESXi"] |
|||
* [http://labs.vmware.com/publications/performance-evaluation-of-hpc-benchmarks-on-vmwares-esxi-server "Performance Evaluation of HPC Benchmarks on VMware’s ESXi Server"]. |
|||
And some on NUMA in Linux here: |
|||
== NUMA Placement and Migration (in xl) == |
|||
* [https://lwn.net/Articles/568870/ NUMA scheduling progress] |
|||
* [https://lwn.net/Articles/524977/ NUMA in a hurry] |
|||
* [http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=10fc05d0e551146ad6feb0ab8902d28a2d3c5624 Document automatic NUMA balancing sysctls] |
|||
= Performance Evaluation and Benckmarks = |
|||
For xl, VM migration a very special form of VM creation (if looking at the migration target). That's the reason why, when the target VM gets created on the target host, automatic placement may take place, exactly as it happens with new VMs. So, unless one override the relevant options in the config file during migration itself, the target VM will be placed on one (some) node(s) of the target host, and it's node-affinity will be set accordingly. |
|||
When NUMA is involved, it is always wise to do some experimental evaluation, in order to figure out whether a particular feature we just finished implementing is actually improving performance (or, OTOH, is not causing perf. regressions). Benchmarks should be run inside a varying number of VMs running concurrently. |
|||
'''However''', there is right now no guarantee for the final decision from the placing algorithm on the target machine to be "compatible" with the one made on the source machine at initial VM creation time. For instance, if the VM fits in just one node and is placed there on the source host, it can well end up being split on two or more nodes when migrated on the target host (and, of course, the vice-versa). |
|||
Up to now, useful numbers have been obtained from the following bench. suites: |
|||
Currently this is considered acceptable, especially as there is not way to expose any virtual NUMA topology to the VM itself. As soon as some support for that will be introduced, this behavior might change accordingly. |
|||
* [http://www.spec.org/jbb2005/ SpecJBB2005]: really looks a good one, very stable and consistent resutls. |
|||
* [http://www.bitmover.com/lmbench/ lmbench] (some of the lat_*): seems good, but needs more investigation. |
|||
* [http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/ stream]: should be considered, but seems to have issues running with more than one thread (needs more investigation). |
|||
= Future Developments = |
= Future Developments = |
||
| Line 113: | Line 195: | ||
[http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-04/msg00732.html Preliminary patches] introducing support for automatic placement in xl and NUMA-aware scheduling were posted to the [http://lists.xen.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel xen-devel] mailing list a while back. The results of some (preliminary as well) benchmarks have been discussed in [http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2012/04/26/numa-and-xen-part-1-introduction/ this] and [http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2012/05/16/numa-and-xen-part-ii-scheduling-and-placement/ this] Blog posts (as well as in [[Xen_Numa_Scheduling_and_Placement|this]] Wiki article). |
[http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-04/msg00732.html Preliminary patches] introducing support for automatic placement in xl and NUMA-aware scheduling were posted to the [http://lists.xen.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel xen-devel] mailing list a while back. The results of some (preliminary as well) benchmarks have been discussed in [http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2012/04/26/numa-and-xen-part-1-introduction/ this] and [http://blog.xen.org/index.php/2012/05/16/numa-and-xen-part-ii-scheduling-and-placement/ this] Blog posts (as well as in [[Xen_Numa_Scheduling_and_Placement|this]] Wiki article). |
||
Xen 4.2 contains a slightly modified version of that placement algorithm (described above), more specifically, the one implemented by [http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-07/msg01255.html this patch series]. |
Xen 4.2 contains a slightly modified version of that placement algorithm (described above), more specifically, the one implemented by [http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-07/msg01255.html this patch series]. Xen 4.3 improved on this, by adding [http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-04/msg01568.html NUMA aware scheduling]. Development of all the various missing features is, of course, still ongoing, and we plan to add a bunch of new features wrt to NUMA, in Xen 4.5. |
||
Keeping improving it, as well as continuing adding NUMA related features will happen throughout the Xen 4.3 development cycle (so keep yourself posted!). |
|||
This Wiki also hosts a sort of [[Xen_NUMA_Roadmap | Xen NUMA Roadmap]] or, better, the list of items that will be getting some Xen developers' attentions in the upcoming months... Feel free to contribute if thinking something could be missing or wrong. |
This Wiki also hosts a sort of [[Xen_NUMA_Roadmap | Xen NUMA Roadmap]] or, better, the list of items that will be getting some Xen developers' attentions in the upcoming months... Feel free to contribute if thinking something could be missing or wrong. |
||
| Line 120: | Line 204: | ||
[[Category:Xen]] |
[[Category:Xen]] |
||
[[Category:Xen 4.2]] |
[[Category:Xen 4.2]] |
||
[[Category:Xen 4.3]] |
|||
[[Category:Xen 4.4]] |
|||
[[Category:Users]] |
[[Category:Users]] |
||
[[Category:NUMA]] |
[[Category:NUMA]] |
||
[[Category:Resource Management]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:56, 9 February 2015
What is NUMA ?
Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) means that memory accessing times of a program running on a CPU depends on the relative distance between that CPU and that memory. In fact, most of the NUMA systems are built in such a way that processors have their local memory, on which they can operate very fast. On the other hand, getting and storing data from and on remote memory (that is, memory local to some other processor) is quite more complex and slow. NUMA machines are becoming more and more common. Some examples of NUMA boxes/architectures are:
- dual (or more) 2376 Opteron solutions by AMD
- dual (or more) E5620 Xeon solutions by Intel
- the Intel SCC architecture
While on Linux (bare metal, so, no Xen), a pretty easy way to check whether your box is a NUMA one, and find out all its characteristics is the following:
# numactl --hardware available: 2 nodes (0-1) node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 node 0 size: 6055 MB node 0 free: 5968 MB node 1 cpus: 4 5 6 7 12 13 14 15 node 1 size: 5977 MB node 1 free: 5873 MB node distances: node 0 1 0: 10 20 1: 20 10
NUMA Performance Impact
NUMA awareness becomes very important as soon as many domains start running memory-intensive workloads on a shared host. In fact, the cost of accessing non node-local memory locations is very high, and the performance degradation is likely to be noticeable. For example, let's look at a memory-intensive benchmark with a bunch of competing VMs running concurrently on an host with 2 NUMA nodes.
The benchmark being run is SpecJBB2005. Host is a 16 pCPUs, 2-NUMA nodes Xeon, with 12GB RAM (2GB of which reserved for Dom0). Linux kernel for dom0 was 3.2, Xen was xen-unstable at the time of the benchmarking (i.e., more or less Xen 4.2). Guests have 4 vCPUs and 1GB of RAM each. Numbers come from running the benchmark on an increasing (1 to 8 ) number of Xen PV-guests at the same time, and repeating each run 5 times for each of the VMs configurations below:
- default is what was happening by default prior to Xen 4.2, i.e., no vCPU pinning at all;
- pinned means VM#1 was pinned on NODE#0 after being created. This implies its memory was striped on both the nodes, but it can only run on the fist one;
- all memory local is the best possible case, i.e., VM#1 was created on NODE#0 and kept there. That implies all its memory accesses are local;
- all memory remote is the worst possible case, i.e., VM#1 was created on NODE#0 and then moved (by explicitly pinning its pCPUs) on NODE#1. That implies all its memory accesses are remote.
In all the experiments, it is only VM#1 that was pinned/moved. All the other VMs have their memory "striped" between the two nodes and are free to run everywhere. The final score achieved by SpecJBB on VM#1 is reported below. As SpecJBB output is in terms of "business transactions per second (bops)", higher values correspond to better results.
First of all, notice how small the standard deviation is for all the runs: this confirms SpecJBB is a good benchmark. The most interesting lines to look at and compare are the purple and the blue ones. In fact, that clearly shows how much getting NUMA right matters, even in such a small box!
The full set of results, with plots about all the statistical properties of the data set, can be found here.
NUMA and Xen
Xen is already capable of running on NUMA machines. First of all, while on Xen (well, on Dom0), figuring out the NUMA characteristics of the box goes by running xl info -n. Its output, on a 2 NUMA nodes machine, with 8 cores each (pCPUs 0-7 ==> Node #0, pCPUs 8-15 ==> Node #1) is as follows:
# xl info -n host : Zhaman release : 3.10.0 version : #1 SMP Mon Jul 8 23:16:42 UTC 2013 machine : x86_64 nr_cpus : 16 max_cpu_id : 63 nr_nodes : 2 cores_per_socket : 4 threads_per_core : 2 cpu_mhz : 2394 hw_caps : bfebfbff:2c100800:00000000:00003f00:029ee3ff:00000000:00000001:00000000 virt_caps : hvm hvm_directio total_memory : 12285 free_memory : 11604 ... cpu_topology : cpu: core socket node 0: 0 1 0 1: 0 1 0 2: 1 1 0 3: 1 1 0 4: 9 1 0 5: 9 1 0 6: 10 1 0 7: 10 1 0 8: 0 0 1 9: 0 0 1 10: 1 0 1 11: 1 0 1 12: 9 0 1 13: 9 0 1 14: 10 0 1 15: 10 0 1 numa_info : node: memsize memfree distances 0: 6144 5754 10,20 1: 6720 5850 20,10 ...
Xen deals with NUMA by assigning each domain a node affinity, which is the set of nodes of the host from which memory for that domain is allocated (in equal parts). This node affinity is liked to the subset of physical CPUs in the host the domain can or prefers to run. Acting like this, in fact, maximizes the probability of local memory accesses.
NUMA and vCPU pinning
At domain creation time, Xen constructs a domain's node affinity basing on what nodes the pCPUs to which the domain's vCPUs are pinned belong to. If no vCPU to pCPU pinning is specified at creation time (e.g., via the xl config file), what happens is described in the following section. To specify a vCPU pinning during domain creation, one should use the cpus="..." config option. For example, the excerpt below would create a 4 vCPU guest, with 1024 Mb of RAM, and all the 4 vCPUs will be pinned to pCPUs 0-3.
... vcpus = '4' memory = '1024' cpus = "0-3" ...
From a NUMA perspective, if pCPUs 0 to 3 belong all to the same NUMA node (say NUMA node 0), that means the node affinity of the domain will be set to node 0, and all its memory will be allocated on there.
NUMA and cpupools
Cpupools can also come handy in a NUMA system, especially if very large. In fact, they guarantee an even more strict partitioning and isolation than vCPU pinning. When a domain is created inside a cpupool, its node affinity is set to only the node(s) to which the pCPUs in the pool belong to. Have a look at how cpupool-numa-split works.
Automatic NUMA Placement
What happens at domain creation by default (i.e., if no cpus="..." or pool="..." option is present in config file), with respect to NUMA, varies (unfortunately) between the different Xen releases and toolstack used.
Starting from Xen 4.2, both XL and XenD toolstacks try to "guess" on which node(s) the domain could fit best. In fact, optimally fitting a set of VMs on the NUMA nodes of an host is an incarnation of the Bin Packing Problem, and therefore, an is what is used in both the toolstacks, XenD and XL (although not the same heuristics). The basic idea is as follows: among the node (or set of nodes) that have enough free memory and enough physical CPUs to accommodate the domain, the one with the smallest number of vCPUs already running there is chosen.
A more detailed description of automatic NUMA placement is available in the in tree documentation, or in this page. Some "history", and the roadmap for future improvement to automatic NUMA placement is available here.
Automatic NUMA Placement and Migration
From the migration target host perspective, migration is just a kind of special form of domain creation. Therefore, unless the config file (received from the source target) says otherwise, automatic NUMA placement just takes place normally, exactly as it happens with new domains. That means there is no guarantee for the final decision from the placing algorithm on the target machine to be "compatible" with the one made on the source machine at initial domain creation time. For instance, if the domain fits in just one node and is placed there on the source host, it can well end up being split on two or more nodes when migrated on the target host (and the vice-versa).
Currently this is considered acceptable, especially as there is not way to expose any virtual NUMA topology to the VM itself. As soon as some support for that will be introduced, this behavior might change accordingly.
Automatic NUMA Placement and Virtual Topology
Currently (i.e., up to Xen 4.4) there is no way for a domain --either dom0 or domU-- to have a virtual NUMA topology. As soon as this capability will be introduced (and it is indeed under development), that may affect the automatic placement. See the status and the roadmap here.
NUMA Aware Scheduling
NUMA aware scheduling, as it has been included in Xen 4.3, means that it is possible for vCPUs of a domain to just prefer to run on the pCPUs of some NUMA node. The vCPUs will still be allowed, though, to run on every pCPU, guaranteed much more flexibility than having to use pinning.
More details about the solution adopted for NUMA aware scheduling in Xen 4.3 is available in this page.
Querying Memory Distribution
Up to Xen 4.4, there is no easy way to figure out how much memory from each domain has been allocated on each NUMA node in the host. A workaround to that, is exploiting one of the Xen debug keys, by issueing the following commands:
# xl debug-keys u # xl dmesg | tail -n40
A possible output is as follows:
(XEN) 'u' pressed -> dumping numa info (now-0x3F5:9821EF14) (XEN) idx0 -> NODE0 start->1720320 size->1572864 free->1473152 (XEN) phys_to_nid(00000001a4001000) -> 0 should be 0 (XEN) idx1 -> NODE1 start->0 size->1720320 free->1235505 (XEN) phys_to_nid(0000000000001000) -> 1 should be 1 (XEN) CPU0 -> NODE0 (XEN) CPU1 -> NODE0 (XEN) CPU2 -> NODE0 (XEN) CPU3 -> NODE0 (XEN) CPU4 -> NODE0 (XEN) CPU5 -> NODE0 (XEN) CPU6 -> NODE0 (XEN) CPU7 -> NODE0 (XEN) CPU8 -> NODE1 (XEN) CPU9 -> NODE1 (XEN) CPU10 -> NODE1 (XEN) CPU11 -> NODE1 (XEN) CPU12 -> NODE1 (XEN) CPU13 -> NODE1 (XEN) CPU14 -> NODE1 (XEN) CPU15 -> NODE1 (XEN) Memory location of each domain: (XEN) Domain 0 (total: 130998): (XEN) Node 0: 62804 (XEN) Node 1: 68194 (XEN) Domain 1 (total: 262144): (XEN) Node 0: 0 (XEN) Node 1: 262144
In this case, Domain 0 has 62804 pages allocated on NUMA node 0, and 68194 on node 1. On the other hand, Domain 1 has all its 262144 pages allocated out of node 1. A more straightforward mechanism for querying on what node(s) domains' memory is allocated is under development, and will (probably) be available in Xen 4.5.
NUMA in Other Virtualization Platforms
Some information on how NUMA is handled in VMWare virtualization solutions can be found here:
- "Using NUMA Systems with ESX/ESXi"
- "Performance Evaluation of HPC Benchmarks on VMware’s ESXi Server".
And some on NUMA in Linux here:
Performance Evaluation and Benckmarks
When NUMA is involved, it is always wise to do some experimental evaluation, in order to figure out whether a particular feature we just finished implementing is actually improving performance (or, OTOH, is not causing perf. regressions). Benchmarks should be run inside a varying number of VMs running concurrently.
Up to now, useful numbers have been obtained from the following bench. suites:
- SpecJBB2005: really looks a good one, very stable and consistent resutls.
- lmbench (some of the lat_*): seems good, but needs more investigation.
- stream: should be considered, but seems to have issues running with more than one thread (needs more investigation).
Future Developments
Preliminary patches introducing support for automatic placement in xl and NUMA-aware scheduling were posted to the xen-devel mailing list a while back. The results of some (preliminary as well) benchmarks have been discussed in this and this Blog posts (as well as in this Wiki article).
Xen 4.2 contains a slightly modified version of that placement algorithm (described above), more specifically, the one implemented by this patch series. Xen 4.3 improved on this, by adding NUMA aware scheduling. Development of all the various missing features is, of course, still ongoing, and we plan to add a bunch of new features wrt to NUMA, in Xen 4.5.
Keeping improving it, as well as continuing adding NUMA related features will happen throughout the Xen 4.3 development cycle (so keep yourself posted!).
This Wiki also hosts a sort of Xen NUMA Roadmap or, better, the list of items that will be getting some Xen developers' attentions in the upcoming months... Feel free to contribute if thinking something could be missing or wrong.
