feat: Support dedicated CPU placement #19
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #19 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 26.79% 30.17% +3.38%
==========================================
Files 2 3 +1
Lines 780 845 +65
==========================================
+ Hits 209 255 +46
- Misses 526 545 +19
Partials 45 45
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. |
carezkh
changed the title
carezkh
force-pushed
the
care-dev-dedicated-cpu
branch
from
e1d27a2 to
43388c5
Compare
carezkh
changed the title
| @@ -45,9 +46,17 @@ func main() { | |||
| if vmConfig.Cmdline != nil { | |||
| cloudHypervisorCmd = append(cloudHypervisorCmd, "--cmdline", fmt.Sprintf("'%s'", vmConfig.Cmdline.Args)) | |||
| } | |||
| cloudHypervisorCmd = append(cloudHypervisorCmd, "--cpus", fmt.Sprintf("boot=%d,topology=%d:%d:%d:%d", | |||
| vcpuToPCPU := []string{} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add a blank line above would be better
cmd/virt-prerunner/main.go
Outdated
| for i := 0; i < numVCPUs; i++ { | ||
| vmConfig.Cpus.Affinity = append(vmConfig.Cpus.Affinity, &cloudhypervisor.CpuAffinity{ | ||
| Vcpu: i, | ||
| HostCpus: []int{pcpus[i%numPCPUs]}, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we add a webhook validation for CPU resources? If the CPU resource is not guaranteed, it may not be a good idea to bind vCPUs here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's optional for user to configure kubelet CPU manager policy to Static and use Guaranteed pod to get exclusive CPUs on the node, but user can get better performance by using Static policy and Guaranteed QOS. Without any configuration, we bind vCPU to avoid cache missing causing by CPU migration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the VM pod is not in the Guaranteed group, it could see all PCPUs are available for binding? If so, the i%numPCPUs part would always choose to bind the first several PCPUs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, maybe a random algorithm of binding vCPUs could be better. For example, binding vCPUs[0,1,2,3,4,5] to pCPUs[0,1,2,3] can be resolved as follows:
step1: Use each pCPU in a balanced manner. vCPU -> pCPU [0 -> 0, 1 -> 1, 2 -> 2, 3 -> 3]
step2: Bind the other vCPUs randomly. vCPU -> pCPU [4 -> one of 0-3, 5 -> one of 0-3]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm still having a bad feeling about this. It's neither dedicated nor efficient to bind vCPUs to physical cores if they have unmatched numbers.
carezkh
force-pushed
the
care-dev-dedicated-cpu
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1ca5c9c to
163e8ee
Compare
carezkh
force-pushed
the
care-dev-dedicated-cpu
branch
from
163e8ee to
834faef
Compare
No description provided.