[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 2/5] vl.c: add -smp, dies=* command line supp

From: Like Xu
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 2/5] vl.c: add -smp, dies=* command line support
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 09:18:29 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0

On 2019/1/17 2:26, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 06:51:34PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 08:24:56PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
This patch updates the check rules on legeacy -smp parse from user command
and it's designed to obey the same restrictions as socket/core/thread model.

Signed-off-by: Like Xu <address@hidden>

This would require the documentation for -smp to be updated.
qemu-options.hx still says that "cores=" is the number of cores
per socket.

Also, I'm not completely sure we should change the meaning of
"cores=" and smp_cores to be per-die instead of per-socket.  Most
machines won't have any code for tracking dies, so we probably
shouldn't make the extra complexity affect all machines.[1]

Could we not simply have a 'max-dies' property against the machine
base class which defaults to 1. Then no existing machine types
need any changes unless they want to opt-in to supporting
"dies > 1".
It's nice to have max-dies for machine base class.

What would be the disadvantages of a simple -machine
"dies-per-socket" option, specific for PC?

Libvirt currently has

      <topology sockets='1' cores='2' threads='1'/>

To me the natural way to expand that is to use

      <topology sockets='1' dies='2' cores='2' threads='1'/>

but this rather implies dies-per-socket + cores-per-die
not cores-per-socket.  Libvirt could of course convert
its value from  cores-per-die into cores-per-socket
before giving it to QEMU, albeit with the potential
for confusion from people comparing the libvirt and QEMU
level configs
It is a recommended update on cpu topo configuration of libvirt
as well as other upper layer apps.

Keeping core-id and smp_cores per-socket instead of per-die also
seems necessary to keep backwards compatibility on the interface
for identifying CPU hotplug slots.  Igor, what do you think?

Is there really a backwards compatibility problem, given that
no existing mgmt app will have created a VM with "dies != 1".
IOW, if an application adds logic to support configuring a
VM with "dies > 1" it seems fine that they should need to
understand how this impacts the way you identify CPUs for
The impacts from MCP model will be documented continuously.
Any concerns for hot-plugging CPUs in MCP socket is welcomed.

[1] I would even argue that the rest of the -smp options belong
     to the machine object, and topology rules should be
     machine-specific, but cleaning this up will require
     additional work.

If we ever expect to support non-homogenous CPUs then our
modelling of topology is fatally flawed, as it doesm't allow
us to specify  creating a VM with  1 socket containing 2
cores and a second socket containing 4 cores. Fixing that
might require modelling each socket, die, and core as a
distinct set of nested QOM objects which gets real fun.
Do we really need to go out of this non-homogeneous step?
Currently there is no support on physical host AFAIK.
Is there enough benefit?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]