qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "wangyanan (Y)" <wangyanan55@huawei.com>
To: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Cc: "Barry Song" <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
	"Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
	"Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
	ehabkost@redhat.com, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, yangyicong@huawei.com,
	"Shannon Zhao" <shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com>,
	"Alistair Francis" <alistair.francis@wdc.com>,
	prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, "Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
	yuzenghui@huawei.com, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com,
	"David Gibson" <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/7] hw/arm/virt: Introduce cpu topology support
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 14:15:03 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9d1710e7-0863-bee7-e769-7bdf6e3d35e3@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210630115602.txmvmfe2jrzu7o67@gator.home>

On 2021/6/30 19:56, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 05:37:42PM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
>> On 2021/6/30 16:30, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 02:36:31PM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
>>>> Hi Drew, Igor,
>>>> I have a question below, hope for some explanation... :)
>>>> I'm trying to rearrange the smp_parse() helper to make it more scalable.
>>>> But I wonder why we are currently using maxcpus to calculate the missing
>>>> sockets while using *cpus* to calculate the missing cores and threads?
>>>> This makes the following cmdlines work fine,
>>>> -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12  <==>  -smp
>>>> cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=12,cores=1,threads=1
>>>> -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12,cores=6  <==>  -smp
>>>> cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=2,cores=6,threads=1
>>>> -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12,threads=2  <==>  -smp
>>>> cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=6,cores=1,threads=2
>>>> but the following ones break the invalid CPU topology check:
>>>> -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=2  <==>  -smp
>>>> cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=2,cores=4,threads=1
>>>> -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=4,threads=1  <==>  -smp
>>>> cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=4,cores=2,threads=1
>>>> -smp maxcpus=12  <==>  -smp cpus=1,maxcpus=12,sockets=1,cores=1,threads=1
>>>> -smp maxcpus=12,sockets=2  <==>  -smp
>>>> cpus=2,maxcpus=12,sockets=2,cores=1,threads=1
>>>> IMO we should uniformly use maxcpus to calculate the missing sockets
>>>> also cores and threads, which will allow all the above cmdlines work.
>>>> Or maybe I missed something? I read the related discussion in [1] but
>>>> didn't get an unambiguous conclusion.
>>>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/1535553121-80352-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com/
>>> I agree that maxcpus should be used for all calculations.
>> Thanks. From my view uniformly using maxcpus to calculate the missing
>> values won't break any existing working cmdlines, but will allow some now
>> being invalid and incomplete cmdlines to be valid. I will use maxcpus and
>> test the parser for all possible parameter collections.
>>> I think we need
>>> to write -smp parsing from scratch using a set of clean requirements and
>>> then use the machine compat stuff to switch to it. And also properly
>>> document it with something like "Since 6.2..."
>> I agree to rewrite the -smp parsing. But what's the meaning of clean
>> requirements?
>> Sorry I didn't get it.
> I think -smp evolved without all the details considered up front. Now that
> we've considered the details/requirements more completely, then let's
> apply our knowledge of them to an implementation that gets them all
> covered.
Got it now.
> Here's a quick list from the top of my head, there might be
> some missing
>   - maxcpus should be used for computation of missing values
>   - we should assume cores over sockets over threads
>   - we should allow extending the topology with arch-specific
>     members, such as dies, which will always default to 1 when
>     not provided, rather than be computed
>   - we should store the results in the smp machine properties
Right! This is a good summary of what we have discussed recently.

>> Thanks,
>> Yanan
>> .
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Yanan
>>>> .
>>>> On 2021/6/28 16:58, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 04:43:05PM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> On 2021/6/23 1:39, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 07:29:34PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 <drjones@redhat.com> 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.
>>>>>>> Even for x86, defaulting to maximising sockets over cores is sub-optimal.
>>>>>>> In real world x86 hardware it is very rare to have sockets > 2 or 4. For
>>>>>>> large CPU counts, you generally have large cores-per-socket counts on x86.
>>>>>>> The QEMU preference for sockets over cores on x86 (and PPC too IIUC)
>>>>>>> is a fairly arbitrary historical decision.
>>>>>>> It can cause problems with guest OS licensing because both Windows
>>>>>>> and RHEL have been known to charge differently for sockets vs cores,
>>>>>>> with high core counts being cheaper.
>>>>>>> We are not tied into the precise behaviour of the computed topology
>>>>>>> values, as we have no made any promises. All that's required is that
>>>>>>> we keep ABI compat for existing machine types.
>>>>>> If based on this point of view that we haven't made any promises for the
>>>>>> precise behavior of the computed topology, things may get much easier.
>>>>>> I have the following understanding (also a proposal):
>>>>>> We will introduce the support for exposing cpu topology since machine
>>>>>> type 6.2 and we will also describe the computed topology for the guest.
>>>>>> We will not make any stricter parsing logic, however the -smp content in
>>>>>> qemu-options.hx should be rearranged to clearly explain how the missing
>>>>>> values will exactly be computed. And this is what QEMU is responsible for.
>>>>>> We know that a well designed cpu topology configuration can gain much
>>>>>> benefit for the guest, while a badly designed one will also probably cause
>>>>>> negative impact. But the users should be responsible for the design of the
>>>>>> -smp cmdlines. If they are using an incomplete cmdline for a 6.2 machine,
>>>>>> then they should have known what the computed values will be and that
>>>>>> the computed topology will be exposed to the guest.
>>>>>>> So we could decide to change the computed topology so that it prefers
>>>>>>> high core counts, over sockets, whem using new machine types only.
>>>>>>> That would seem to benefit all arches, by making QEMU more reflective
>>>>>>> of real world CPUs topology.
>>>>>> If we really decide to prefer cores over sockets over threads for new
>>>>>> machine
>>>>>> types, then I think we should also record this change in qemu-option.hx.
>>>>> I agree. The proposal sounds good to me. I'd like to hear Eduardo's
>>>>> opinion too (CC'ed).
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> drew
>>>>> .
>>> .
> .

      reply	other threads:[~2021-07-01  6:16 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)
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) [this message]

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=9d1710e7-0863-bee7-e769-7bdf6e3d35e3@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=ehabkost@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).