On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 08:03:28PM +0200, Roman Dobosz wrote: > Hi all, > > Some time ago Jay Pipes published etherpad[1] with ideas around > modelling nested resources, taking NUMA as an example. I was also > encouraged ;) to start this thread, on last Nova scheduler meeting. > > I was read mentioned etherpad and what hits me was that described > scenario with NUMA cells resembles the way how FPGA can be managed. In > some extent. > > NUMA cell can be treated as a vessel for memory cells, and it is > expressed as number of MB. So it is possible to extract the > information from existing data and add another level of aggregation > using only clever prepared SQL query. > > I think, that problem might be broader, than using existing, tweaked a > bit model. If we take a look into resources, which FPGA may expose, > than it can be couple of levels, and each of them can be treated as > resource. > > It can identified 3 levels of FPGA resources, which can be nested one > on the others: > > 1. Whole FPGA. If used discrete FPGA, than even today it might be pass > through to the VM. > > 2. Region in FPGA. Some of the FPGA models can be divided into regions > or slots. Also, for some model it is possible to (re)program such > region individually - in this case there is a possibility to pass > entire slot to the VM, so that it might be possible to reprogram > such slot, and utilize the algorithm within the VM. > > 3. Accelerator in region/FPGA. If there is an accelerator programmed > in the slot, it is possible, that such accelerator provides us with > Virtual Functions (similar to the SR-IOV), than every available VF > can be treated as a resource. > > 4. It might be also necessary to track every VF individually, although > I didn't assumed it will be needed, nevertheless with nested > resources it should be easy to handle it. > > Correlation between such resources are a bit different from NUMA - > while in NUMA case there is a possibility to either schedule a VM with > some memory specified, or request memory within NUMA cell, in FPGA if > there is slot taken, or accelerator already programmed and used, there > is no way to offer FPGA as a whole to the tenant, until all > accelerators and slots are free. > > I've followed Jay idea about nested resources and having in mind > blueprint[2] regarding dynamic resources I've prepared how it fit in.
[snip lots of complicated modelling] > Thoughts? I'd suggest you'll increase your chances of success with nova design approval if you focus on implementing a really simple usage scheme for FPGA as the first step in Nova. All the threads I've see go well off into the weeds about trying to solve everybody's niche/edge cases perfectly and as a result get very complicated. For both NUMA and PCI dev assignment we got initial success by cutting back scope and focusing on the doing the minimum possible to satisfy the 90% common use cases, and ignoring the less common 10% initially. Yes this is not optimal, but it is good enough to keep most people happy without introducing massive complexity into the designs & impl. For FPGA, I'd like to see an initial proposal that assumed the FPGA is pre-programmed & pre-divided into a fixed number of slots and simply deal with this. This is similar to how we dealt with PCI SR-IOV initially where we assumed the dev is in VF-mode only. Only later did we start to add cleverness around switching VF vs PF mode. For FPGA I think any kind of dynamic re-allocation/re-configuration is better done as a stage 2 Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
