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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 B27D3C2B9F4 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:31:20 +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 261D461075 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:31:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 261D461075 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]:53292 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lvkF5-0001Xt-1n for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:31:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56932) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lvkDb-0008Ac-KG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:29:49 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:55323) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lvkDY-0003PF-Nx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:29:47 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1624382982; 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=6lp+zQNNKeCYwIqZQ0D6qkstYfa93zqfdEHq/+ukUQE=; b=BEWLzcYKxfX9gKEOfsaXN9KOgoPqGqVqrNvkEUouhLELd0dfPPp/tvTmuV+O/3vxNNf+/k hBJuBgnEfeSTDqbdqr8f5Z5eAntwK4F7jn7jGcXoHsKDqlr/9heTHikaVCh+C/WB1/9tou wrOf7mi3ScAjGarBIj3GM2OIxlb/utI= Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-419-NfWKrvbZNbKOC3VVooP_Ig-1; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:29:39 -0400 X-MC-Unique: NfWKrvbZNbKOC3VVooP_Ig-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id x10-20020aa7cd8a0000b0290394bdda92a8so2995163edv.8 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:29:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=6lp+zQNNKeCYwIqZQ0D6qkstYfa93zqfdEHq/+ukUQE=; b=nFuRIo6WofnawdqY50Dpuqg3CLE9g9mJS7TcWxmDsiN94Cde0ha2Xmq3WmkqZC716z vW8/nSCSMbkQnhBnLIgDpZAvHZss/cybJ1SRt8oV3z21dEDKaRlirPVTkyilAeq2DKUl YwMU15CtLj5LMSdeA7AbCuokJcTg/wcOGhlW7Bj2CDqed/jYps8i8IQrNOWP0oJDDbR6 HGSJi6dzcMryF22sgu+a06u36n3TBU3JdYniiEH6JVL/M+Y6uOgsYx4pu6KEI1HKcGTf JPZmtHMud+gJqBXw6sumy8wYqnRC20d6XUvCl+cMUEQSO7LPjQDs2DFVAJbZZS4iJjm+ jeAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5330HHWLP6y0/v6ok9J4e6aHJ33gzorFG1ztP9LMbqTkArq6ozUM T9FJ2I/ppskCCQ2qEd0Zk1Nk+gaqges11u5gGoS4WHWnPB/NdZAxUlab6uhyk1rxfOe8YFV0ajp LTVBYhMQgJK9i9iU= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c644:: with SMTP id z4mr1574901edr.204.1624382978065; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:29:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyj3muvsB2ozoH9j83HCFeU3Y6hsIvHAbk/HhButR0l76SIX4IViHUF07Ox5ZlzylfDxX+h6w== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:c644:: with SMTP id z4mr1574855edr.204.1624382977741; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gator (cst2-174-132.cust.vodafone.cz. [31.30.174.132]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j22sm6270742eje.123.2021.06.22.10.29.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:29:34 +0200 From: Andrew Jones To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/7] hw/arm/virt: Introduce cpu topology support Message-ID: <20210622172934.537l7e27sxd6car6@gator> References: <20210622093413.13360-1-wangyanan55@huawei.com> <20210622114634.crjqusw6x6oj4j6v@gator> <7fcc5f2d-cc84-3464-15cc-3bebb07f8190@huawei.com> <20210622142915.pekttdvbi3q5vnh3@gator> <20210622174013.52422c73@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=drjones@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=drjones@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -29 X-Spam_score: -3.0 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.223, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable 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: Barry Song , Peter Maydell , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, yangyicong@huawei.com, "wangyanan \(Y\)" , Shannon Zhao , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Alistair Francis , prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, Paolo Bonzini , yuzenghui@huawei.com, Igor Mammedov , zhukeqian1@huawei.com, David Gibson Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 06:14:25PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:40:13PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:29:15 +0200 > > Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 03:10:57PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:04:52PM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote: > > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > > > > > On 2021/6/22 20:41, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 08:31:22PM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2021/6/22 19:46, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:34:06PM +0800, Yanan Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is v4 of the series [1] that I posted to introduce support for > > > > > > > > > > generating cpu topology descriptions to guest. Comments are welcome! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Description: > > > > > > > > > > Once the view of an accurate virtual cpu topology is provided to guest, > > > > > > > > > > with a well-designed vCPU pinning to the pCPU we may get a huge benefit, > > > > > > > > > > e.g., the scheduling performance improvement. See Dario Faggioli's > > > > > > > > > > research and the related performance tests in [2] for reference. So here > > > > > > > > > > we go, this patch series introduces cpu topology support for ARM platform. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this series, instead of quietly enforcing the support for the latest > > > > > > > > > > machine type, a new parameter "expose=on|off" in -smp command line is > > > > > > > > > > introduced to leave QEMU users a choice to decide whether to enable the > > > > > > > > > > feature or not. This will allow the feature to work on different machine > > > > > > > > > > types and also ideally compat with already in-use -smp command lines. > > > > > > > > > > Also we make much stricter requirement for the topology configuration > > > > > > > > > > with "expose=on". > > > > > > > > > Seeing this 'expose=on' parameter feels to me like we're adding a > > > > > > > > > "make-it-work=yes" parameter. IMHO this is just something that should > > > > > > > > > be done by default for the current machine type version and beyond. > > > > > > > > > I don't see the need for a parameter to turnthis on, especially since > > > > > > > > > it is being made architecture specific. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yanan, we never discussed an "expose" parameter in the previous versions > > > > > > > > of this series. We discussed a "strict" parameter though, which would > > > > > > > > allow existing command lines to "work" using assumptions of what the user > > > > > > > > meant and strict=on users to get what they mean or an error saying that > > > > > > > > they asked for something that won't work or would require unreasonable > > > > > > > > assumptions. Why was this changed to an "expose" parameter? > > > > > > > Yes, we indeed discuss a new "strict" parameter but not a "expose" in v2 [1] > > > > > > > of this series. > > > > > > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/20210413080745.33004-6-wangyanan55@huawei.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And in the discussion, we hoped things would work like below with "strict" > > > > > > > parameter: > > > > > > > Users who want to describe cpu topology should provide cmdline like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -smp strict=on,cpus=4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and in this case we require an more accurate -smp configuration and > > > > > > > then generate the cpu topology description through ACPI/DT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While without a strict description, no cpu topology description would > > > > > > > be generated, so they get nothing through ACPI/DT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that the "strict" parameter actually serves as a knob to > > > > > > > turn on/off the exposure of topology, and this is the reason I changed > > > > > > > the name. > > > > > > Yes, the use of 'strict=on' is no better than expose=on IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I give QEMU a cli > > > > > > > > > > > > -smp cpus=4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > then I expect that topology to be exposed to the guest. I shouldn't > > > > > > have to add extra flags to make that happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the thread, it seems the concern was around the fact that > > > > > > the settings were not honoured historically and thus the CLI values > > > > > > could be garbage. ie -smp cpus=4,sockets=8,cores=3,thread=9 > > > > > This "-smp cpus=4,sockets=8,cores=3,threads=9" behaviors as a wrong > > > > > configuration, and the parsing function already report error for this case. > > > > > > > > > > We hope more complete config like "-smp 4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=1" > > > > > for exposure of topology, and the incomplete ones like "-smp 4,sockets=1" > > > > > or "-smp 4, cores=1" are not acceptable any more because we are starting > > > > > to expose the topology. > > > > > > > > Incomplete specified topologies *are* acceptable. > > > > > > > > The smp_parse method will automatically fill in any missing values. > > > > > > > > ie, > > > > > > > > -smp 4,cores=1 > > > > -smp cores=1 > > > > -smp threads=1 > > > > -smp sockets=4 > > > > > > > > are all functionally identical to > > > > > > > > -smp 4,sockets=4,cores=1,dies=1,threads=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > The QEMU man page says this explicitly > > > > > > > > For the PC target, the number of cores per die, the > > > > number of threads per cores, the number of dies per packages and the > > > > total number of sockets can be specified. Missing values will be > > > > computed. If any on the three values is given, the total number of > > > > CPUs n can be omitted. > > > > > > It doesn't say how it will compute them though, which for the default > > > smp_parse and for x86 is to prefer sockets over cores over threads. > > > That's not necessarily what the user expects. IMO, we need a 'strict=on' > > > parameter that doesn't allow any collection of smp parameters which > > > require unreasonable assumptions. Reasonable assumptions are threads=1, > > > when threads is not specified and the rest of the math adds up. Also, > > > maxcpus == cpus when maxcpus isn't specified is reasonable. But, it's not > > > as reasonable to decide how to divide cores among sockets or to assume > > > threads=1 when only sockets and cores are given. How do we know the user > > > didn't forget to specify threads if we can't check the math? > > > > or just outlaw all invalid topologies incl. incomplete by default > > (without requiring extra option), and permit them only for old machine > > types ()using compat machinery) without topo info provided to guest. > > And maybe later deprecate invalid topologies altogether. > > This feels like it is creating pain for users to fix a problem that > isn't shown to actually be causing any common issues. > > We've supposed that users are having problems when forgetting to > specify "threads" and not having the compute value be desirable, > but where are the bug reports to back this up ? > > The partial topologies are valid and have well defined semantics. > Those semantics may not match everyone's preference, but that > doesn't make them invalid. > If we adopt the [undocumented] semantics of x86 for arm, then we may surprise some users that expect e.g. '-smp 16' to give them a single socket with 16 cores, because they'll start getting 16 sockets with 1 core each. That's because if we don't describe a topology to an arm linux guest then it assumes cores. Maybe we shouldn't worry about this, but I'd prefer we require explicit inputs from users and, if necessary, for them to explicitly opt-in to requiring those explicit inputs. Thanks, drew