On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:05:54AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes: > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:51:11AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes: > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:37:39AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:39:52 +1100 > >> >> David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:36:55AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > >> >> > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 20:43:41 +0100 > >> >> > > Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> writes: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > it will allow mgmt to query present and possible to hotplug CPUs > >> >> > > > > it is required from a target platform that wish to support > >> >> > > > > command to set board specific MachineClass.possible_cpus() hook, > >> >> > > > > which will return a list of possible CPUs with options > >> >> > > > > that would be needed for hotplugging possible CPUs. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > For RFC there are: > >> >> > > > > 'arch_id': 'int' - mandatory unique CPU number, > >> >> > > > > for x86 it's APIC ID for ARM it's MPIDR > >> >> > > > > 'type': 'str' - CPU object type for usage with device_add > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a set of optional fields that would allows mgmt tools > >> >> > > > > to know at what granularity and where a new CPU could be > >> >> > > > > hotplugged; > >> >> > > > > [node],[socket],[core],[thread] > >> >> > > > > Hopefully that should cover needs for CPU hotplug porposes for > >> >> > > > > magor targets and we can extend structure in future adding > >> >> > > > > more fields if it will be needed. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > also for present CPUs there is a 'cpu_link' field which > >> >> > > > > would allow mgmt inspect whatever object/abstraction > >> >> > > > > the target platform considers as CPU object. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > For RFC purposes implements only for x86 target so far. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Adding ad hoc queries as we go won't scale. Could this be solved > >> >> > > > by a > >> >> > > > generic introspection interface? > >> >> > > Do you mean generic QOM introspection? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Using QOM we could have '/cpus' container and create QOM links > >> >> > > for exiting (populated links) and possible (empty links) CPUs. > >> >> > > However in that case link's name will need have a special format > >> >> > > that will convey an information necessary for mgmt to hotplug > >> >> > > a CPU object, at least: > >> >> > > - where: [node],[socket],[core],[thread] options > >> >> > > - optionally what CPU object to use with device_add command > >> >> > > >> >> > Hmm.. is it not enough to follow the link and get the topology > >> >> > information by examining the target? > >> >> One can't follow a link if it's an empty one, hence > >> >> CPU placement information should be provided somehow, > >> >> either: > >> > > >> > Ah, right, so the issue is determining the socket/core/thread > >> > addresses that cpus which aren't yet present will have. > >> > > >> >> * by precreating cpu-package objects with properties that > >> >> would describe it /could be inspected via OQM/ > >> > > >> > So, we could do this, but I think the natural way would be to have the > >> > information for each potential thread in the package. Just putting > >> > say "core number" in the package itself assumes more than I'd like > >> > about how packages sit in the heirarchy. Plus, it means that > >> > management has a bunch of cases to deal with: package has all the > >> > information, package has just a core id, package has just a socket id, > >> > and so forth. > >> > > >> > It is a but clunky that when the package is plugged, this information > >> > will have to sit parallel to the array of actual thread links. > >> > > >> > Markus or Andreas is there a natural way to present a list of (node, > >> > socket, core, thread) tuples in the package object? Preferably > >> > without having to create a whole bunch of "potential thread" objects > >> > just for the purpose. > >> > >> I'm just a dabbler when it comes to QOM, but I can try. > >> > >> I view a concrete cpu-package device (subtype of the abstract > >> cpu-package device) as a composite device containing stuff like actual > >> cores. > > > > So.. the idea is it's a bit more abstract than that. My intention is > > that the package lists - in some manner - each of the threads > > (i.e. vcpus) it contains / can contain. Depending on the platform it > > *might* also have internal structure such as cores / sockets, but it > > doesn't have to. Either way, the contained threads will be listed in > > a common way, as a flat array. > > > >> To create a composite device, you start with the outer shell, then plug > >> in components one by one. Components can be nested arbitrarily deep. > >> > >> Perhaps you can define the concrete cpu-package shell in a way that lets > >> you query what you need to know from a mere shell (no components > >> plugged). > > > > Right.. that's exactly what I'm suggesting, but I don't know enough > > about the presentation of basic data in QOM to know quite how to > > accomplish it. > > > >> >> or > >> >> * via QMP/HMP command that would provide the same information > >> >> only without need to precreate anything. The only difference > >> >> is that it allows to use -device/device_add for new CPUs. > >> > > >> > I'd be ok with that option as well. I'd be thinking it would be > >> > implemented via a class method on the package object which returns the > >> > addresses that its contained threads will have, whether or not they're > >> > present right now. Does that make sense? > >> > >> If you model CPU packages as composite cpu-package devices, then you > >> should be able to plug and unplug these with device_add, unless plugging > >> them requires complex wiring that can't be done in qdev / device_add, > >> yet. > > > > There's a whole bunch of issues raised by allowing device_add of > > cpus. Although they're certainly interesting and probably useful, I'd > > really like to punt on them for the time being, so we can get some > > sort of cpu hotplug working on Power (and s390 and others). > > If you make it a device, you can still set > cannot_instantiate_with_device_add_yet to disable -device / device_add > for now, and unset it later, when you're ready for it.
Yes, that was the plan. > > The idea of the cpu packages is that - at least for now - the user > > can't control their contents apart from the single "present" bit. > > They already know what they can contain. > > Composite devices commonly do. They're not general containers. > > The "present" bit sounds like you propose to "pre-plug" all the possible > CPU packages, and thus reduce CPU hot plug/unplug to enabling/disabling > pre-plugged CPU packages. Yes. > What if a board can take different kinds of CPU packages? Do we > pre-plug all combinations? Then some combinations are non-sensical. > How would we reject them? I'm not trying to solve all cases with the present bit handling - just the currently common case of a machine with fixed maximum number of slots which are expected to contain identical processor units. > For instance, PC machines support a wide range of CPUs in various > arrangements, but you generally need to use a single kind of CPU, and > the kind of CPU restricts the possible arrangements. How would you > model that? The idea is that the available slots are determined by the machine, possibly using machine or global options. So for PC, -cpu and -smp would determine the number of slots and what can go into them. > > There are a bunch of potential use cases this doesn't address, but I > > think it *does* address a useful subset of currently interesting > > cases, without precluding more flexible extensions in future. > > > >> If that's the case, a general solution for "device needs complex wiring" > >> would be more useful than a one-off for CPU packages. > >> > >> [...] > >> > -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature