Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v2 05/24] numa: move source of default CPUs to NUMA node mapping into boards

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 02:56:59PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Originally CPU threads were by default assigned in
> round-robin fashion. However it was causing issues in
> guest since CPU threads from the same socket/core could
> be placed on different NUMA nodes.
> Commit fb43b73b (pc: fix default VCPU to NUMA node mapping)
> fixed it by grouping threads within a socket on the same node
> introducing cpu_index_to_socket_id() callback and commit
> 20bb648d (spapr: Fix default NUMA node allocation for threads)
> reused callback to fix similar issues for SPAPR machine
> even though socket doesn't make much sense there.
> 
> As result QEMU ended up having 3 default distribution rules
> used by 3 targets /virt-arm, spapr, pc/.
> 
> In effort of moving NUMA mapping for CPUs into possible_cpus,
> generalize default mapping in numa.c by making boards decide
> on default mapping and let them explicitly tell generic
> numa code to which node a CPU thread belongs to by replacing
> cpu_index_to_socket_id() with @cpu_index_to_instance_props()
> which provides default node_id assigned by board to specified
> cpu_index.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>

Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden>

Just two extra comments below:

[...]
> +static CpuInstanceProperties
> +virt_cpu_index_to_props(MachineState *ms, unsigned cpu_index)
> +{
> +    MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);
> +    const CPUArchIdList *possible_cpus = mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids(ms);
> +
> +    assert(cpu_index < possible_cpus->len);
> +    return possible_cpus->cpus[cpu_index].props;;
> +}
> +
[...]
> +static CpuInstanceProperties
> +pc_cpu_index_to_props(MachineState *ms, unsigned cpu_index)
>  {
> +    MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);
> +    const CPUArchIdList *possible_cpus = mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids(ms);
> +
> +    assert(cpu_index < possible_cpus->len);
> +    return possible_cpus->cpus[cpu_index].props;;
>  }

The fact that these two implementations look exactly the same
made me wonder:

1) Why this isn't the default implementation;
2) Why exactly spapr needs a different implementation.

Then I noticed that there's nothing in the common machine code
that specifies that possible_cpus->cpus[] is indexed by
cpu_index. This means it is indeed safer to require each machine
to provide its own cpu_index_to_props implementation than having
a default implementation that can unexpectedly break (e.g. if
granularity at possible_cpus is not at VCPU/thread level).

I would still like to have an abstraction that wouldn't require
writing machine-specific code (e.g. cpu_index ranges to
possible_cpus like David suggested), but that's for a follow-up
series.

[...]
> +static CpuInstanceProperties
> +spapr_cpu_index_to_props(MachineState *machine, unsigned cpu_index)
>  {
> +    CPUArchId *core_slot;
> +    MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(machine);
> +
> +    /* make sure possible_cpu are intialized */
> +    mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids(machine);
> +    core_slot = spapr_find_cpu_slot(machine, cpu_index, NULL);
> +    assert(core_slot);
> +    return core_slot->props;
>  }

If you need to submit v3, maybe a comment here explaining why
spapr needs a different cpu_index_to_props implementation would
be helpful. I took a while to figure it out.

-- 
Eduardo