qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "wangyanan (Y)" <wangyanan55@huawei.com>
To: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
Cc: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
	Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
	"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	yangyicong@huawei.com, Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com>,
	qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>,
	prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	yuzenghui@huawei.com, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>,
	zhukeqian1@huawei.com, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/7] hw/arm/virt: Introduce cpu topology support
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:04:52 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7fcc5f2d-cc84-3464-15cc-3bebb07f8190@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YNHalhuNZhMa665J@redhat.com>

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.
> A similar problem existed on x86 platforms. When we made that stricter
> we had cde that issued a warning for a few releases, essentially
> deprecating the config. EVentually it was turned into a fatal error.
> This gave applications time to fix their broken configs, while having
> correct configs "just work".
I understand this solution. Stop exposing topology for unqualified -smp
config and report a warning message at the transitional phase, and finally
incur an error for them.

BTW, just want to be sure, it this a common method in QEMU development
to solve this kind of compatibility issues?
> I'd suggest doing the same for arm. If the -smp args are semantically
> valid then expose the topology automatically (for new machine type).
> If the -smp args are semantically broken, then issue a warning. In
> a few releases time, turn this warning into an error.
So this topology feature will only work for the current machine type and
the following versions, right?

> Regards,
> Daniel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-22 14:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-22  9:34 [RFC PATCH v4 0/7] hw/arm/virt: Introduce cpu topology support Yanan Wang
2021-06-22  9:34 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/7] vl: Add expose=on|off option support in -smp command line Yanan Wang
2021-06-22  9:34 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/7] hw/arm/virt: Add separate -smp parsing function for ARM machines Yanan Wang
2021-06-22  9:34 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/7] machine: disallow -smp expose=on for non-ARM machines Yanan Wang
2021-06-22  9:34 ` [RFC PATCH v4 4/7] device_tree: Add qemu_fdt_add_path Yanan Wang
2021-06-22  9:34 ` [RFC PATCH v4 5/7] hw/arm/virt: Add cpu-map to device tree Yanan Wang
2021-06-22  9:34 ` [RFC PATCH v4 6/7] hw/acpi/aml-build: Add Processor hierarchy node structure Yanan Wang
2021-06-22  9:34 ` [RFC PATCH v4 7/7] hw/acpi/aml-build: Generate PPTT table Yanan Wang
2021-06-22 10:18 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/7] hw/arm/virt: Introduce cpu topology support Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-06-22 11:46   ` Andrew Jones
2021-06-22 12:31     ` wangyanan (Y)
2021-06-22 12:41       ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-06-22 14:04         ` wangyanan (Y) [this message]
2021-06-22 14:10           ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-06-22 14:15             ` Peter Maydell
2021-06-22 14:28               ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-06-28 11:14                 ` wangyanan (Y)
2021-06-28 11:31                   ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-06-28 11:53                     ` wangyanan (Y)
2021-06-22 14:29             ` Andrew Jones
2021-06-22 15:15               ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-06-22 15:40               ` Igor Mammedov
2021-06-22 17:08                 ` Andrew Jones
2021-06-22 17:14                 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-06-22 17:29                   ` Andrew Jones
2021-06-22 17:39                     ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-06-28  8:43                       ` wangyanan (Y)
2021-06-28  8:58                         ` Andrew Jones
2021-06-28 10:48                           ` wangyanan (Y)
2021-06-30  6:36                           ` wangyanan (Y)
2021-06-30  8:30                             ` Andrew Jones
2021-06-30  9:37                               ` wangyanan (Y)
2021-06-30 11:56                                 ` Andrew Jones
2021-07-01  6:15                                   ` wangyanan (Y)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7fcc5f2d-cc84-3464-15cc-3bebb07f8190@huawei.com \
    --to=wangyanan55@huawei.com \
    --cc=alistair.francis@wdc.com \
    --cc=berrange@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
    --cc=drjones@redhat.com \
    --cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=qemu-arm@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com \
    --cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
    --cc=wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com \
    --cc=yangyicong@huawei.com \
    --cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
    --cc=zhukeqian1@huawei.com \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).