* [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
@ 2019-08-05 7:13 Tao Xu
2019-08-06 12:50 ` Igor Mammedov
2019-09-03 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tao Xu @ 2019-08-05 7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: david, ehabkost, imammedo, marcel.apfelbaum; +Cc: Tao Xu, qemu-ppc, qemu-devel
Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
is expected to be created implicitly.
Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
---
This patch has a dependency on
https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11063235/
---
hw/core/numa.c | 9 +++++++--
hw/ppc/spapr.c | 9 +--------
include/hw/boards.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/core/numa.c b/hw/core/numa.c
index 75db35ac19..756d243d3f 100644
--- a/hw/core/numa.c
+++ b/hw/core/numa.c
@@ -580,9 +580,14 @@ void numa_complete_configuration(MachineState *ms)
* guest tries to use it with that drivers.
*
* Enable NUMA implicitly by adding a new NUMA node automatically.
+ *
+ * Or if MachineClass::auto_enable_numa is true and no NUMA nodes,
+ * assume there is just one node with whole RAM.
*/
- if (ms->ram_slots > 0 && ms->numa_state->num_nodes == 0 &&
- mc->auto_enable_numa_with_memhp) {
+ if (ms->numa_state->num_nodes == 0 &&
+ ((ms->ram_slots > 0 &&
+ mc->auto_enable_numa_with_memhp) ||
+ mc->auto_enable_numa)) {
NumaNodeOptions node = { };
parse_numa_node(ms, &node, &error_abort);
}
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
index f607ca567b..e50343f326 100644
--- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
+++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
@@ -400,14 +400,6 @@ static int spapr_populate_memory(SpaprMachineState *spapr, void *fdt)
hwaddr mem_start, node_size;
int i, nb_nodes = machine->numa_state->num_nodes;
NodeInfo *nodes = machine->numa_state->nodes;
- NodeInfo ramnode;
-
- /* No NUMA nodes, assume there is just one node with whole RAM */
- if (!nb_nodes) {
- nb_nodes = 1;
- ramnode.node_mem = machine->ram_size;
- nodes = &ramnode;
- }
for (i = 0, mem_start = 0; i < nb_nodes; ++i) {
if (!nodes[i].node_mem) {
@@ -4369,6 +4361,7 @@ static void spapr_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
*/
mc->numa_mem_align_shift = 28;
mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
+ mc->auto_enable_numa = true;
smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM] = SPAPR_CAP_OFF;
smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_VSX] = SPAPR_CAP_ON;
diff --git a/include/hw/boards.h b/include/hw/boards.h
index 2eb9a0b4e0..4a350b87d2 100644
--- a/include/hw/boards.h
+++ b/include/hw/boards.h
@@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ struct MachineClass {
bool smbus_no_migration_support;
bool nvdimm_supported;
bool numa_mem_supported;
+ bool auto_enable_numa;
HotplugHandler *(*get_hotplug_handler)(MachineState *machine,
DeviceState *dev);
--
2.20.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-08-05 7:13 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node Tao Xu
@ 2019-08-06 12:50 ` Igor Mammedov
2019-08-07 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
2019-09-03 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Igor Mammedov @ 2019-08-06 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tao Xu; +Cc: qemu-devel, qemu-ppc, ehabkost, david
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:13:02 +0800
Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
> is expected to be created implicitly.
>
> Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
> ---
>
> This patch has a dependency on
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11063235/
> ---
> hw/core/numa.c | 9 +++++++--
> hw/ppc/spapr.c | 9 +--------
> include/hw/boards.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/core/numa.c b/hw/core/numa.c
> index 75db35ac19..756d243d3f 100644
> --- a/hw/core/numa.c
> +++ b/hw/core/numa.c
> @@ -580,9 +580,14 @@ void numa_complete_configuration(MachineState *ms)
> * guest tries to use it with that drivers.
> *
> * Enable NUMA implicitly by adding a new NUMA node automatically.
> + *
> + * Or if MachineClass::auto_enable_numa is true and no NUMA nodes,
> + * assume there is just one node with whole RAM.
> */
> - if (ms->ram_slots > 0 && ms->numa_state->num_nodes == 0 &&
> - mc->auto_enable_numa_with_memhp) {
> + if (ms->numa_state->num_nodes == 0 &&
> + ((ms->ram_slots > 0 &&
> + mc->auto_enable_numa_with_memhp) ||
> + mc->auto_enable_numa)) {
> NumaNodeOptions node = { };
> parse_numa_node(ms, &node, &error_abort);
> }
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> index f607ca567b..e50343f326 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> @@ -400,14 +400,6 @@ static int spapr_populate_memory(SpaprMachineState *spapr, void *fdt)
> hwaddr mem_start, node_size;
> int i, nb_nodes = machine->numa_state->num_nodes;
> NodeInfo *nodes = machine->numa_state->nodes;
> - NodeInfo ramnode;
> -
> - /* No NUMA nodes, assume there is just one node with whole RAM */
> - if (!nb_nodes) {
> - nb_nodes = 1;
> - ramnode.node_mem = machine->ram_size;
> - nodes = &ramnode;
> - }
>
> for (i = 0, mem_start = 0; i < nb_nodes; ++i) {
> if (!nodes[i].node_mem) {
> @@ -4369,6 +4361,7 @@ static void spapr_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
> */
> mc->numa_mem_align_shift = 28;
> mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
> + mc->auto_enable_numa = true;
this will always create a numa node (that will affect not only RAM but
also all other components that depends on numa state (like CPUs)),
where as spapr_populate_memory() was only faking numa node in DT for RAM.
It makes non-numa configuration impossible.
Seeing David's ACK on the patch it might be fine, but I believe
commit message should capture that and explain why the change in
behavior is fine.
> smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM] = SPAPR_CAP_OFF;
> smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_VSX] = SPAPR_CAP_ON;
> diff --git a/include/hw/boards.h b/include/hw/boards.h
> index 2eb9a0b4e0..4a350b87d2 100644
> --- a/include/hw/boards.h
> +++ b/include/hw/boards.h
> @@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ struct MachineClass {
> bool smbus_no_migration_support;
> bool nvdimm_supported;
> bool numa_mem_supported;
> + bool auto_enable_numa;
>
> HotplugHandler *(*get_hotplug_handler)(MachineState *machine,
> DeviceState *dev);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-08-06 12:50 ` Igor Mammedov
@ 2019-08-07 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
2019-08-08 8:17 ` Tao Xu
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Eduardo Habkost @ 2019-08-07 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor Mammedov; +Cc: Tao Xu, qemu-ppc, qemu-devel, david
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:50:55PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:13:02 +0800
> Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
> > is expected to be created implicitly.
> >
> > Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
[...]
> > + mc->auto_enable_numa = true;
>
> this will always create a numa node (that will affect not only RAM but
> also all other components that depends on numa state (like CPUs)),
> where as spapr_populate_memory() was only faking numa node in DT for RAM.
> It makes non-numa configuration impossible.
> Seeing David's ACK on the patch it might be fine, but I believe
> commit message should capture that and explain why the change in
> behavior is fine.
After a quick look, all spapr code seems to have the same
behavior when nb_numa_nodes==0 and nb_numa_nodes==1, but I'd like
to be sure.
David and/or Tao Xu: do you confirm there's no ABI change at all
on spapr after implicitly creating a NUMA node?
>
> > smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM] = SPAPR_CAP_OFF;
> > smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_VSX] = SPAPR_CAP_ON;
> > diff --git a/include/hw/boards.h b/include/hw/boards.h
> > index 2eb9a0b4e0..4a350b87d2 100644
> > --- a/include/hw/boards.h
> > +++ b/include/hw/boards.h
> > @@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ struct MachineClass {
> > bool smbus_no_migration_support;
> > bool nvdimm_supported;
> > bool numa_mem_supported;
> > + bool auto_enable_numa;
> >
> > HotplugHandler *(*get_hotplug_handler)(MachineState *machine,
> > DeviceState *dev);
>
--
Eduardo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-08-07 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
@ 2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
2019-08-09 9:29 ` Igor Mammedov
2019-08-08 8:17 ` Tao Xu
1 sibling, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: David Gibson @ 2019-08-08 6:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eduardo Habkost; +Cc: Igor Mammedov, Tao Xu, qemu-ppc, qemu-devel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2421 bytes --]
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 02:52:56PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:50:55PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:13:02 +0800
> > Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
> > > is expected to be created implicitly.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > > Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
> [...]
> > > + mc->auto_enable_numa = true;
> >
> > this will always create a numa node (that will affect not only RAM but
> > also all other components that depends on numa state (like CPUs)),
> > where as spapr_populate_memory() was only faking numa node in DT for RAM.
> > It makes non-numa configuration impossible.
> > Seeing David's ACK on the patch it might be fine, but I believe
> > commit message should capture that and explain why the change in
> > behavior is fine.
>
> After a quick look, all spapr code seems to have the same
> behavior when nb_numa_nodes==0 and nb_numa_nodes==1, but I'd like
> to be sure.
That's certainly the intention. If there are cases where it doesn't
behave that way, it's a bug - although possible one we have to
maintainer for machine compatibility.
> David and/or Tao Xu: do you confirm there's no ABI change at all
> on spapr after implicitly creating a NUMA node?
I don't believe there is, no.
>
> >
> > > smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM] = SPAPR_CAP_OFF;
> > > smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_VSX] = SPAPR_CAP_ON;
> > > diff --git a/include/hw/boards.h b/include/hw/boards.h
> > > index 2eb9a0b4e0..4a350b87d2 100644
> > > --- a/include/hw/boards.h
> > > +++ b/include/hw/boards.h
> > > @@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ struct MachineClass {
> > > bool smbus_no_migration_support;
> > > bool nvdimm_supported;
> > > bool numa_mem_supported;
> > > + bool auto_enable_numa;
> > >
> > > HotplugHandler *(*get_hotplug_handler)(MachineState *machine,
> > > DeviceState *dev);
> >
>
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
@ 2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
2019-08-09 9:29 ` Igor Mammedov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: David Gibson @ 2019-08-08 6:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eduardo Habkost; +Cc: Igor Mammedov, Tao Xu, qemu-ppc, qemu-devel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2040 bytes --]
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 04:35:00PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 02:52:56PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:50:55PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:13:02 +0800
> > > Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
> > > > is expected to be created implicitly.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > > > Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > > > Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
> > [...]
> > > > + mc->auto_enable_numa = true;
> > >
> > > this will always create a numa node (that will affect not only RAM but
> > > also all other components that depends on numa state (like CPUs)),
> > > where as spapr_populate_memory() was only faking numa node in DT for RAM.
> > > It makes non-numa configuration impossible.
> > > Seeing David's ACK on the patch it might be fine, but I believe
> > > commit message should capture that and explain why the change in
> > > behavior is fine.
> >
> > After a quick look, all spapr code seems to have the same
> > behavior when nb_numa_nodes==0 and nb_numa_nodes==1, but I'd like
> > to be sure.
>
> That's certainly the intention. If there are cases where it doesn't
> behave that way, it's a bug - although possible one we have to
> maintainer for machine compatibility.
>
> > David and/or Tao Xu: do you confirm there's no ABI change at all
> > on spapr after implicitly creating a NUMA node?
>
> I don't believe there is, no.
Oh, FWIW, the PAPR interface which is what defines the guest
environment has no notion of "non NUMA" except in the sense of a
system with exactly one NUMA node.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
@ 2019-08-09 9:29 ` Igor Mammedov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Igor Mammedov @ 2019-08-09 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Gibson; +Cc: Tao Xu, qemu-ppc, Eduardo Habkost, qemu-devel
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:35:00 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 02:52:56PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:50:55PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:13:02 +0800
> > > Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
> > > > is expected to be created implicitly.
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > > > Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > > > Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
> > [...]
> > > > + mc->auto_enable_numa = true;
> > >
> > > this will always create a numa node (that will affect not only RAM but
> > > also all other components that depends on numa state (like CPUs)),
> > > where as spapr_populate_memory() was only faking numa node in DT for RAM.
> > > It makes non-numa configuration impossible.
> > > Seeing David's ACK on the patch it might be fine, but I believe
> > > commit message should capture that and explain why the change in
> > > behavior is fine.
> >
> > After a quick look, all spapr code seems to have the same
> > behavior when nb_numa_nodes==0 and nb_numa_nodes==1, but I'd like
> > to be sure.
>
> That's certainly the intention. If there are cases where it doesn't
> behave that way, it's a bug - although possible one we have to
> maintainer for machine compatibility.
considering DT is firmware we typically do not add any compat
code for the later.
>
> > David and/or Tao Xu: do you confirm there's no ABI change at all
> > on spapr after implicitly creating a NUMA node?
>
> I don't believe there is, no.
Also seeing your next reply, it seems there is no non-numa
usecase is spec so it would be a bug to begin with, hence:
Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> >
> > >
> > > > smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM] = SPAPR_CAP_OFF;
> > > > smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_VSX] = SPAPR_CAP_ON;
> > > > diff --git a/include/hw/boards.h b/include/hw/boards.h
> > > > index 2eb9a0b4e0..4a350b87d2 100644
> > > > --- a/include/hw/boards.h
> > > > +++ b/include/hw/boards.h
> > > > @@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ struct MachineClass {
> > > > bool smbus_no_migration_support;
> > > > bool nvdimm_supported;
> > > > bool numa_mem_supported;
> > > > + bool auto_enable_numa;
> > > >
> > > > HotplugHandler *(*get_hotplug_handler)(MachineState *machine,
> > > > DeviceState *dev);
> > >
> >
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-08-07 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
@ 2019-08-08 8:17 ` Tao Xu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tao Xu @ 2019-08-08 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eduardo Habkost, Igor Mammedov; +Cc: qemu-ppc, qemu-devel, david
On 8/8/2019 1:52 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:50:55PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 15:13:02 +0800
>> Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
>>> is expected to be created implicitly.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>>> Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
>>> Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
> [...]
>>> + mc->auto_enable_numa = true;
>>
>> this will always create a numa node (that will affect not only RAM but
>> also all other components that depends on numa state (like CPUs)),
>> where as spapr_populate_memory() was only faking numa node in DT for RAM.
>> It makes non-numa configuration impossible.
>> Seeing David's ACK on the patch it might be fine, but I believe
>> commit message should capture that and explain why the change in
>> behavior is fine.
>
> After a quick look, all spapr code seems to have the same
> behavior when nb_numa_nodes==0 and nb_numa_nodes==1, but I'd like
> to be sure.
>
> David and/or Tao Xu: do you confirm there's no ABI change at all
> on spapr after implicitly creating a NUMA node?
>
Even without this patch and HMAT patch, if without numa configuration,
global nb_numa_nodes is always existing and default is 0, so nb_nodes
will be auto set to 1, so from my point of view, this patch will not
change ABI.
And I would also want to listen David's opinion.
>>
>>> smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM] = SPAPR_CAP_OFF;
>>> smc->default_caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_VSX] = SPAPR_CAP_ON;
>>> diff --git a/include/hw/boards.h b/include/hw/boards.h
>>> index 2eb9a0b4e0..4a350b87d2 100644
>>> --- a/include/hw/boards.h
>>> +++ b/include/hw/boards.h
>>> @@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ struct MachineClass {
>>> bool smbus_no_migration_support;
>>> bool nvdimm_supported;
>>> bool numa_mem_supported;
>>> + bool auto_enable_numa;
>>>
>>> HotplugHandler *(*get_hotplug_handler)(MachineState *machine,
>>> DeviceState *dev);
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-08-05 7:13 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node Tao Xu
2019-08-06 12:50 ` Igor Mammedov
@ 2019-09-03 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
2019-09-04 6:22 ` Tao Xu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Eduardo Habkost @ 2019-09-03 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tao Xu; +Cc: imammedo, qemu-ppc, qemu-devel, david
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:13:02PM +0800, Tao Xu wrote:
> Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
> is expected to be created implicitly.
>
> Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
This introduces spurious warnings when running qemu-system-ppc64.
See: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/CAFEAcA-AvFS2cbDH-t5SxgY9hA=LGL81_8dn-vh193vtV9W1Lg@mail.gmail.com/
To reproduce it, just run 'qemu-system-ppc64 -machine pseries'
without any -numa arguments.
I have removed this patch from machine-next so it won't block the
existing pull request.
--
Eduardo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-09-03 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
@ 2019-09-04 6:22 ` Tao Xu
2019-09-04 20:43 ` Eduardo Habkost
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tao Xu @ 2019-09-04 6:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eduardo Habkost; +Cc: imammedo, qemu-ppc, qemu-devel, david
On 9/4/2019 1:52 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:13:02PM +0800, Tao Xu wrote:
>> Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
>> is expected to be created implicitly.
>>
>> Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>> Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
>> Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
>
> This introduces spurious warnings when running qemu-system-ppc64.
> See: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/CAFEAcA-AvFS2cbDH-t5SxgY9hA=LGL81_8dn-vh193vtV9W1Lg@mail.gmail.com/
>
> To reproduce it, just run 'qemu-system-ppc64 -machine pseries'
> without any -numa arguments.
>
> I have removed this patch from machine-next so it won't block the
> existing pull request.
>
I got it. If default splitting of RAM between nodes is
deprecated, this patch can't reuse the splitting code. I agree with
droping this patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-09-04 6:22 ` Tao Xu
@ 2019-09-04 20:43 ` Eduardo Habkost
2019-09-05 0:57 ` Tao Xu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Eduardo Habkost @ 2019-09-04 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tao Xu; +Cc: imammedo, qemu-ppc, qemu-devel, david
On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 02:22:39PM +0800, Tao Xu wrote:
> On 9/4/2019 1:52 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:13:02PM +0800, Tao Xu wrote:
> > > Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
> > > is expected to be created implicitly.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > > Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
> >
> > This introduces spurious warnings when running qemu-system-ppc64.
> > See: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/CAFEAcA-AvFS2cbDH-t5SxgY9hA=LGL81_8dn-vh193vtV9W1Lg@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > To reproduce it, just run 'qemu-system-ppc64 -machine pseries'
> > without any -numa arguments.
> >
> > I have removed this patch from machine-next so it won't block the
> > existing pull request.
> >
> I got it. If default splitting of RAM between nodes is
> deprecated, this patch can't reuse the splitting code. I agree with droping
> this patch.
Probably all we need to fix this issue is to replace
NumaNodeOptions node = { };
with
NumaNodeOptions node = { .size = ram_size };
in the auto_enable_numa block.
Do you plan to send v2?
--
Eduardo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node
2019-09-04 20:43 ` Eduardo Habkost
@ 2019-09-05 0:57 ` Tao Xu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Tao Xu @ 2019-09-05 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eduardo Habkost; +Cc: imammedo, qemu-ppc, qemu-devel, david
On 9/5/2019 4:43 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 02:22:39PM +0800, Tao Xu wrote:
>> On 9/4/2019 1:52 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:13:02PM +0800, Tao Xu wrote:
>>>> Add MachineClass::auto_enable_numa field. When it is true, a NUMA node
>>>> is expected to be created implicitly.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
>>>> Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
>>>> Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
>>>
>>> This introduces spurious warnings when running qemu-system-ppc64.
>>> See: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/CAFEAcA-AvFS2cbDH-t5SxgY9hA=LGL81_8dn-vh193vtV9W1Lg@mail.gmail.com/
>>>
>>> To reproduce it, just run 'qemu-system-ppc64 -machine pseries'
>>> without any -numa arguments.
>>>
>>> I have removed this patch from machine-next so it won't block the
>>> existing pull request.
>>>
>> I got it. If default splitting of RAM between nodes is
>> deprecated, this patch can't reuse the splitting code. I agree with droping
>> this patch.
>
> Probably all we need to fix this issue is to replace
> NumaNodeOptions node = { };
> with
> NumaNodeOptions node = { .size = ram_size };
> in the auto_enable_numa block.
>
> Do you plan to send v2?
>
OK, thank you for your suggestion. I will fix it and send v2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-09-05 0:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-08-05 7:13 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] numa: Introduce MachineClass::auto_enable_numa for implicit NUMA node Tao Xu
2019-08-06 12:50 ` Igor Mammedov
2019-08-07 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
2019-08-08 6:35 ` David Gibson
2019-08-09 9:29 ` Igor Mammedov
2019-08-08 8:17 ` Tao Xu
2019-09-03 17:52 ` Eduardo Habkost
2019-09-04 6:22 ` Tao Xu
2019-09-04 20:43 ` Eduardo Habkost
2019-09-05 0:57 ` Tao Xu
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.