Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Remove EPYC mode apicid decode and use generic decode

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 05:32:51PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:29:31PM -0400, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 09:55:33AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 10:55:26PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:07:52 -0400
> > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 07:03:14PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:03:40 +0100
> > > > > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 14:36:38 +0100
> > > > > > > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 03:30:34PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 13:50:59 +0100
> > > > > > > > > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >   
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 02:38:49PM +0200, Igor Mammedov 
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:  
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:12:19 -0500
> > > > > > > > > > > > Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >     
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To support some of the complex topology, we 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > introduced EPYC mode apicid decode.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But, EPYC mode decode is running into problems. Also 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it can become quite a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > maintenance problem in the future. So, it was decided 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to remove that code and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use the generic decode which works for majority of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the topology. Most of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SPECed configuration would work just fine. With some 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > non-SPECed user inputs,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it will create some sub-optimal configuration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the discussion thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > c0bcc1a6-1d84-a6e7-e468-d5b437c1b254@amd.com/">https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/c0bcc1a6-1d84-a6e7-e468-d5b437c1b254@amd.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This series removes all the EPYC mode specific apicid 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes and use the generic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > apicid decode.    
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > the main difference between EPYC and all other CPUs is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > it requires numa configuration (it's not optional)
> > > > > > > > > > > > so we need an extra patch on top of this series to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > enfoce that, i.e:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > >  if (epyc && !numa) 
> > > > > > > > > > > >     error("EPYC cpu requires numa to be configured")    
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Please no. This will break 90% of current usage of the 
> > > > > > > > > > > EPYC CPU in
> > > > > > > > > > > real world QEMU deployments. That is way too user hostile 
> > > > > > > > > > > to introduce
> > > > > > > > > > > as a requirement.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need to force this ?  People have been 
> > > > > > > > > > > successfuly using
> > > > > > > > > > > EPYC CPUs without NUMA in QEMU for years now.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > It might not match behaviour of bare metal silicon, but 
> > > > > > > > > > > that hasn't
> > > > > > > > > > > obviously caused the world to come crashing down.  
> > > > > > > > > > So far it produces warning in linux kernel (RHBZ1728166),
> > > > > > > > > > (resulting performance might be suboptimal), but I haven't 
> > > > > > > > > > seen
> > > > > > > > > > anyone reporting crashes yet.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > What other options do we have?
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we can turn on strict check for new machine types 
> > > > > > > > > > only,
> > > > > > > > > > so old configs can keep broken topology (CPUID),
> > > > > > > > > > while new ones would require -numa and produce correct 
> > > > > > > > > > topology.  
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > No, tieing this to machine types is not viable either. That 
> > > > > > > > > is still
> > > > > > > > > going to break essentially every single management 
> > > > > > > > > application that
> > > > > > > > > exists today using QEMU.
> > > > > > > > for that we have deprecation process, so users could switch to 
> > > > > > > > new CLI
> > > > > > > > that would be required.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > We could, but I don't find the cost/benefit tradeoff is 
> > > > > > > compelling.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > There are so many places where we diverge from what bare metal 
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > do, that I don't see a good reason to introduce this breakage, 
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > if we notify users via a deprecation message. 
> > > > > > I find (3) and (4) good enough reasons to use deprecation.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If QEMU wants to require NUMA for EPYC, then QEMU could internally
> > > > > > > create a single NUMA node if none was specified for new machine
> > > > > > > types, such that there is no visible change or breakage to any
> > > > > > > mgmt apps.  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (1) for configs that started without -numa &&|| without -smp dies>1,
> > > > > >       QEMU can do just that (enable auto_enable_numa).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why exactly do we need auto_enable_numa with dies=1?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If I understand correctly, Babu said earlier in this thread[1]
> > > > > that we don't need auto_enable_numa.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] 
> > > > > 11489e5f-2285-ddb4-9c35-c9f522d603a0@amd.com/">https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/11489e5f-2285-ddb4-9c35-c9f522d603a0@amd.com/
> > > > 
> > > > in case of 1 die, -numa is not must have as it's one numa node only.
> > > > Though having auto_enable_numa, will allow to reuse the CPU.node-id 
> > > > property
> > > > to compose CPUID_Fn8000001E_ECX. i.e only code one path vs 
> > > > numa|non-numa variant.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > > > (2) As for configs that are out of spec, I do not care much (junk 
> > > > > > in - junk out)
> > > > > > (though not having to spend time on bug reports and debug issues, 
> > > > > > just to say
> > > > > > it's not supported in the end, makes deprecation sound like a 
> > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > choice)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (3) However if config matches bare metal i.e. CPU has more than 1 
> > > > > > die and within
> > > > > > dies limits (spec wise), QEMU has to produce valid CPUs.
> > > > > > In this case QEMU can't make up multiple numa nodes and mappings of 
> > > > > > RAM/CPUs
> > > > > > on user's behalf. That's where we have to error out and ask for 
> > > > > > explicit
> > > > > > numa configuration.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For such configs, current code (since 5.0), will produce in the 
> > > > > > best case
> > > > > > performance issues  due to mismatching data in APICID, CPUID and 
> > > > > > ACPI tables,
> > > > > > in the worst case issues might be related to invalid APIC ID if 
> > > > > > running on EPYC host
> > > > > > and HW takes in account subfields of APIC ID (according to Babu 
> > > > > > real CPU uses
> > > > > > die_id(aka node_id) internally).
> > > > > > I'd rather error out on nonsense configs earlier than debug such 
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > and than error out anyways later (upsetting more users).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > The requirements are not clear to me.  Is this just about making
> > > > > CPU die_id match the NUMA node ID, or are there additional
> > > > > constraints?
> > > > die_id is per socket numa node index, so it's not numa node id in
> > > > a sense we use it in qemu
> > > > (that's where all the confusion started that led to current code)
> > > > 
> > > > I understood that each die in EPYC chip is a numa node, which encodes
> > > > NUMA node ID (system wide) in CPUID_Fn8000001E_ECX, that's why I
> > > > wrote earlier that EPYC makes -numa non optional.
> > > 
> > > AFAIK, that isnt a hard requirement.  In bare metal EPYC machine I
> > > have used, the BIOS lets you choose whether the dies are exposed as
> > > 1, 2 or 4 NUMA nodes. So there's no fixed  die == numa node mapping
> > > that I see.
> > 
> > If you change that setting, will all CPUID bits be kept the same,
> > or the die topology seen by the OS will change?
> 
> I don't know offhand, and don't currently have access to the hardware.
> All I know is that I was able to change between 1, 2 and 4 NUMA nodes
> and that was reflected in numactl display, I didn't check the CPUID
> when I was testing previously.

Babu, do you know the answer here?

If CPUID is kept the same with 1, 2 and 4 NUMA nodes, then having
NUMA configured is not a requirement at all.

-- 
Eduardo