Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] hw/arm/virt: Consider SMP configuration in CPU topology

[Igor Mammedov]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:24:46 +0800
Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Igor,
> 
> On 4/20/22 7:50 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:31:02 +0800
> > Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:  
> >> On 4/20/22 4:32 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 10:09:18 +0800
> >>> Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> Currently, the SMP configuration isn't considered when the CPU
> >>>> topology is populated. In this case, it's impossible to provide
> >>>> the default CPU-to-NUMA mapping or association based on the socket
> >>>> ID of the given CPU.
> >>>>
> >>>> This takes account of SMP configuration when the CPU topology
> >>>> is populated. The die ID for the given CPU isn't assigned since
> >>>> it's not supported on arm/virt machine. Besides, the used SMP
> >>>> configuration in qtest/numa-test/aarch64_numa_cpu() is corrcted
> >>>> to avoid testing failure
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Yanan Wang <wangyanan55@huawei.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    hw/arm/virt.c           | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> >>>>    tests/qtest/numa-test.c |  3 ++-
> >>>>    2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
> >>>> index d2e5ecd234..5443ecae92 100644
> >>>> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
> >>>> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
> >>>> @@ -2505,6 +2505,7 @@ static const CPUArchIdList 
> >>>> *virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids(MachineState *ms)
> >>>>        int n;
> >>>>        unsigned int max_cpus = ms->smp.max_cpus;
> >>>>        VirtMachineState *vms = VIRT_MACHINE(ms);
> >>>> +    MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(vms);
> >>>>    
> >>>>        if (ms->possible_cpus) {
> >>>>            assert(ms->possible_cpus->len == max_cpus);
> >>>> @@ -2518,8 +2519,20 @@ static const CPUArchIdList 
> >>>> *virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids(MachineState *ms)
> >>>>            ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].type = ms->cpu_type;
> >>>>            ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].arch_id =
> >>>>                virt_cpu_mp_affinity(vms, n);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +        assert(!mc->smp_props.dies_supported);
> >>>> +        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_socket_id = true;
> >>>> +        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.socket_id =
> >>>> +            (n / (ms->smp.clusters * ms->smp.cores * ms->smp.threads));
> >>>> +        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_cluster_id = true;
> >>>> +        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.cluster_id =
> >>>> +            (n / (ms->smp.cores * ms->smp.threads)) % ms->smp.clusters;
> >>>> +        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_core_id = true;
> >>>> +        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.core_id =
> >>>> +            (n / ms->smp.threads) % ms->smp.cores;
> >>>>            ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_thread_id = true;
> >>>> -        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.thread_id = n;
> >>>> +        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.thread_id =
> >>>> +            n % ms->smp.threads;
> >>>>        }
> >>>>        return ms->possible_cpus;
> >>>>    }
> >>>> diff --git a/tests/qtest/numa-test.c b/tests/qtest/numa-test.c
> >>>> index 90bf68a5b3..aeda8c774c 100644
> >>>> --- a/tests/qtest/numa-test.c
> >>>> +++ b/tests/qtest/numa-test.c
> >>>> @@ -223,7 +223,8 @@ static void aarch64_numa_cpu(const void *data)
> >>>>        QTestState *qts;
> >>>>        g_autofree char *cli = NULL;
> >>>>    
> >>>> -    cli = make_cli(data, "-machine smp.cpus=2 "
> >>>> +    cli = make_cli(data, "-machine "
> >>>> +        
> >>>> "smp.cpus=2,smp.sockets=1,smp.clusters=1,smp.cores=1,smp.threads=2 "  
> >>>
> >>> Is cluster-less config possible?
> >>> (looks like it used to work before and it doesn't after this series)
> >>>      
> >>
> >> Nope, it's impossible. This specific test case uses arm/virt machine
> >> where cluster is always supported.mc->smp_props.clusters_supported
> >> has been set to true in hw/arm/virt.c::virt_machine_class_init().
> >>
> >> Exactly, the changes to virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids() included in this 
> >> patch breaks
> >> the test. It's why the fix to qtest/numa-test has been squashed to this 
> >> patch, to
> >> make it 'bit bisect' friendly as Yanan suggested.  
> > 
> > so what was error that broke the test?
> > (probably should be mentioned in commit message)
> > 
> > (also is it possible to split out the test patch into
> > a separate one and put it before this one)
> >   
> 
> With amend to the command lines, the following one is used and below error
> is raised from the test. The error is mentioned in the commit log in
> PATCH[v7 2/4].
> 
>      -machine smp.cpus=2                                   \
>      -numa node,nodeid=0,memdev=ram -numa node,nodeid=1    \
>      -numa cpu,node-id=1,thread-id=0                       \
>      -numa cpu,node-id=0,thread-id=1
> 
>      qemu-system-aarch64: -numa cpu,node-id=0,thread-id=1: no match found
>      (reported from hw/core/machine.c::machine_set_cpu_numa_node())
> 
> After the changes to virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids() is applied, "thread-id=1"
> isn't valid any more. The CPU topology becomes like below. Note that
> mc->smp_props.prefer_sockets is true on arm/virt machine.
> 
>      index    socket   cluster    core    thread
>      --------------------------------------------
>        0        0        0         0        0
>        1        1        0         0        0
> 
> With the amended command lines, the topology changes again so
> that "thread-id=1" is valid:
> 
>      index    socket   cluster    core    thread
>      --------------------------------------------
>        0        0        0         0        0
>        1        0        0         0        1
> 
> It should be ok to split the test/qtest/aarch64_numa_cpu() changes into
> a separate patch and put it before this one. In that case, the specified
> smp.{socket, cluster, core, threads} isn't used by arm/virt machine yet,
> and 'thread-id=2' should be still valid. Lets do this if I need post v8.
> Otherwise, I guess it's also fine to squash the test/qtest/aarch64_numa_cpu()
> changes into PATCH[2/4], as we're doing.

if you need to respin v7. do it as separate patch with proper commit message
and maybe add an extra test that exercises fully specified topo.

> 
> >   
> >>
> >>  
> >>>>            "-numa node,nodeid=0,memdev=ram -numa node,nodeid=1 "
> >>>>            "-numa cpu,node-id=1,thread-id=0 "
> >>>>            "-numa cpu,node-id=0,thread-id=1");  
> 
> Thanks,
> Gavin
>