From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A20C433E1 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 085B220663 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="N0I1koFJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 085B220663 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:58420 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jv2KL-0003Kk-BY for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:33:17 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51264) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jv2Je-0002lW-3q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:32:34 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:35873 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jv2Jb-0004Qe-M7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:32:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1594661550; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=msFyQfgd0XcrIXCnRVQePJrCoKEN5NKpVKambenTnIs=; b=N0I1koFJbA96DDEyKzd12lVuq/LWffV5FKH0gC/m2C5C52GyCcsvUkEYGo6wM7iV8Nqz3w TD5VjYdFuf6JJ+URrlCw908ZbkQhHx21+ofHYLng88lv2XpI/ybAQ95OmaB7fIexnl3zTC IrW4dbDWcvi+/nrkvL5/Qpuf2Q3hovE= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-5-uSvgm8Y4ORag-ZkuGnJDlg-1; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:32:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: uSvgm8Y4ORag-ZkuGnJDlg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89994100AA22; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.40.208.62]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52A25BAE4; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 17:32:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 19:32:21 +0200 From: Igor Mammedov To: Babu Moger Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] hw/i386: Initialize topo_ids from CpuInstanceProperties Message-ID: <20200713193221.27674630@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <47dc6238-bb71-d679-f58a-f574eb36d572@amd.com> References: <159362436285.36204.986406297373871949.stgit@naples-babu.amd.com> <159362466108.36204.3751851750959980962.stgit@naples-babu.amd.com> <20200713110822.5495e1c6@redhat.com> <78809d9f-a491-8c99-3f35-7f012c7d75bf@amd.com> <20200713181740.16a357a6@redhat.com> <47dc6238-bb71-d679-f58a-f574eb36d572@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=imammedo@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=207.211.31.120; envelope-from=imammedo@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/13 02:19:41 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -40 X-Spam_score: -4.1 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , "ehabkost@redhat.com" , "rth@twiddle.net" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:43:33 -0500 Babu Moger wrote: > On 7/13/20 11:17 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 10:02:22 -0500 > > Babu Moger wrote: > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Igor Mammedov > >>> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 4:08 AM > >>> To: Moger, Babu > >>> Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com; rth@twiddle.net; ehabkost@redhat.com; qemu- > >>> devel@nongnu.org > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] hw/i386: Initialize topo_ids from > >>> CpuInstanceProperties > > [...] > >>>> + > >>>> +/* > >>>> + * Initialize topo_ids from CpuInstanceProperties > >>>> + * node_id in CpuInstanceProperties(or in CPU device) is a sequential > >>>> + * number, but while building the topology > >>> > >>>> we need to separate it for > >>>> + * each socket(mod nodes_per_pkg). > >>> could you clarify a bit more on why this is necessary? > >> > >> If you have two sockets and 4 numa nodes, node_id in CpuInstanceProperties > >> will be number sequentially as 0, 1, 2, 3. But in EPYC topology, it will > >> be 0, 1, 0, 1( Basically mod % number of nodes per socket). > > > > I'm confused, let's suppose we have 2 EPYC sockets with 2 nodes per socket > > so APIC id woulbe be composed like: > > > > 1st socket > > pkg_id(0) | node_id(0) > > pkg_id(0) | node_id(1) > > > > 2nd socket > > pkg_id(1) | node_id(0) > > pkg_id(1) | node_id(1) > > > > if that's the case, then EPYC's node_id here doesn't look like > > a NUMA node in the sense it's usually used > > (above config would have 4 different memory controllers => 4 conventional NUMA nodes). > > EPIC model uses combination of socket id and node id to identify the numa > nodes. So, it internally uses all the information. well with above values, EPYC's node_id doesn't look like it's specifying a machine numa node, but rather a node index within single socket. In which case, it doesn't make much sense calling it NUMA node_id, it's rather some index within a socket. (it starts looking like terminology is all mixed up) If you have access to a milti-socket EPYC machine, can you dump and post here its apic ids, pls? > > > > > I wonder if linux guest actually uses node_id encoded in apic id for > > configuring/checking numa structures, or it just uses whatever ACPI SRAT > > table provided. > > > >>>> + */ > >>>> +static inline void x86_init_topo_ids(X86CPUTopoInfo *topo_info, > >>>> + CpuInstanceProperties props, > >>>> + X86CPUTopoIDs *topo_ids) { > >>>> + topo_ids->smt_id = props.has_thread_id ? props.thread_id : 0; > >>>> + topo_ids->core_id = props.has_core_id ? props.core_id : 0; > >>>> + topo_ids->die_id = props.has_die_id ? props.die_id : 0; > >>>> + topo_ids->node_id = props.has_node_id ? > >>>> + props.node_id % MAX(topo_info->nodes_per_pkg, 1) : 0; > >>>> + topo_ids->pkg_id = props.has_socket_id ? props.socket_id : 0; } > >>>> /* > >>>> * Make APIC ID for the CPU 'cpu_index' > >>>> * > >>>> > >> > > >