On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:08:23PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 12:14:59PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:52:39PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:24:30 +0530 > > > Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Prevent guests from booting with CPU topologies that have partially > > > > filled CPU cores or can result in partially filled CPU cores after > > > > CPU hotplug like > > > > > > > > -smp 15,sockets=1,cores=4,threads=4,maxcpus=16 or > > > > -smp 15,sockets=1,cores=4,threads=4,maxcpus=17. > > > > > > CCing Eduardo who might tell if it's ok wrt x86 > > > > I am always afraid of introducing fatal errors for configurations > > that are obviously wrong but may already exist in production (so > > it would prevent users from migrating existing VMs). But I am > > becoming more inclined to be a bit more aggressive and stop > > allowing these broken configurations. > > > > But I would rewrite the error message, and just say that "cpus" > > and "maxcpus" must be multiples of "threads". It's easier to > > understand and explain than what "partially filled cores" mean. > > You don't need to mention "sockets" and "cores" in the error > > message, either. > > > > Also, please print different error messages to indicate if > > "maxcpus" or "cpus" is the culprit. > > Sure, makes it easier for the user. > > > > > What about (cpus % (cores * threads) != 0)? It would result in > > sockets with different numbers of cores. Should we allow that? > > I had planned to prevent that and also > > (max_cpus % (cores * threads) != 0) in the next iteration. Would be > good to know if enforcing such a condition would be acceptable.
I'm all for being strict about core count, too, and only make the requirements less strict if really necessary. After all, if we really wanted to support sockets with different numbers of cores each, or cores with different numbers of threads each, the functionality shouldn't be restricted to the last socket/core, so it would require a completely different command-line interface. -- Eduardo
