On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:06:34 +0200
Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 02:32:39PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 19 +++++++------------
> > hw/arm/virt.c | 13 +++++++------
> > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> > index 0835e59..ce7499c 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> > @@ -486,30 +486,25 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
> > VirtMachineState *vms)
> > AcpiSystemResourceAffinityTable *srat;
> > AcpiSratProcessorGiccAffinity *core;
> > AcpiSratMemoryAffinity *numamem;
> > - int i, j, srat_start;
> > + int i, srat_start;
> > uint64_t mem_base;
> > - uint32_t *cpu_node = g_malloc0(vms->smp_cpus * sizeof(uint32_t));
> > -
> > - for (i = 0; i < vms->smp_cpus; i++) {
> > - j = numa_get_node_for_cpu(i);
> > - if (j < nb_numa_nodes) {
> > - cpu_node[i] = j;
> > - }
> > - }
> > + MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(vms);
> > + const CPUArchIdList *cpu_list =
> > mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids(MACHINE(vms));
> >
> > srat_start = table_data->len;
> > srat = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof(*srat));
> > srat->reserved1 = cpu_to_le32(1);
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < vms->smp_cpus; ++i) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < cpu_list->len; ++i) {
> > + int node_id = cpu_list->cpus[i].props.has_node_id ?
> > + cpu_list->cpus[i].props.node_id : 0;
> > core = acpi_data_push(table_data, sizeof(*core));
> > core->type = ACPI_SRAT_PROCESSOR_GICC;
> > core->length = sizeof(*core);
> > - core->proximity = cpu_to_le32(cpu_node[i]);
> > + core->proximity = cpu_to_le32(node_id);
> > core->acpi_processor_uid = cpu_to_le32(i);
> > core->flags = cpu_to_le32(1);
> > }
> > - g_free(cpu_node);
> >
> > mem_base = vms->memmap[VIRT_MEM].base;
> > for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; ++i) {
> > diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > index 68d44f3..0a75df5 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/virt.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
> > @@ -338,7 +338,7 @@ static void fdt_add_cpu_nodes(const VirtMachineState
> > *vms)
> > {
> > int cpu;
> > int addr_cells = 1;
> > - unsigned int i;
> > + const MachineState *ms = MACHINE(vms);
> >
> > /*
> > * From Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> > @@ -369,6 +369,7 @@ static void fdt_add_cpu_nodes(const VirtMachineState
> > *vms)
> > for (cpu = vms->smp_cpus - 1; cpu >= 0; cpu--) {
> > char *nodename = g_strdup_printf("/cpus/cpu@%d", cpu);
> > ARMCPU *armcpu = ARM_CPU(qemu_get_cpu(cpu));
> > + CPUState *cs = CPU(armcpu);
> >
> > qemu_fdt_add_subnode(vms->fdt, nodename);
> > qemu_fdt_setprop_string(vms->fdt, nodename, "device_type", "cpu");
> > @@ -389,9 +390,9 @@ static void fdt_add_cpu_nodes(const VirtMachineState
> > *vms)
> > armcpu->mp_affinity);
> > }
> >
> > - i = numa_get_node_for_cpu(cpu);
> > - if (i < nb_numa_nodes) {
> > - qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(vms->fdt, nodename, "numa-node-id", i);
> > + if (ms->possible_cpus->cpus[cs->cpu_index].props.has_node_id) {
> > + qemu_fdt_setprop_cell(vms->fdt, nodename, "numa-node-id",
> > + ms->possible_cpus->cpus[cs->cpu_index].props.node_id);
> > }
> >
> > g_free(nodename);
> > @@ -1378,8 +1379,8 @@ static void machvirt_init(MachineState *machine)
> > cs = CPU(cpuobj);
> > cs->cpu_index = n;
> >
> > - node_id = numa_get_node_for_cpu(cs->cpu_index);
> > - if (node_id == nb_numa_nodes) {
> > + node_id =
> > machine->possible_cpus->cpus[cs->cpu_index].props.node_id;
> > + if
> > (!machine->possible_cpus->cpus[cs->cpu_index].props.has_node_id) {
> > /* by default CPUState::numa_node was 0 if it's not set via CLI
> > * keep it this way for now but in future we probably should
> > * refuse to start up with incomplete numa mapping */
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
> >
>
> We now have many machine->possible_cpus->cpus[index].props.[has_]node_id
> instances. I think we need inline accessors added to include/sysemu/numa.h
> like
>
> static inline bool numa_has_node_id(MachineState *ms, int index)
> {
> return ms->possible_cpus->cpus[index].props.has_node_id;
> }
>
> static inline int numa_node_id(MachineState *ms, int index)
> {
> return ms->possible_cpus->cpus[index].props.node_id;
> }
>
> ...
>
> to improve readability and maintainability.
I dislike this kind of one-line wrappers as it hurts readability
and maintainability of code for me as I'm forced to jump
around code every time I see such wrapper to recall what and
how it does. Code still fits in one line so I'd like to keep
it wrapper-less in this case if you don't insist on the change.
>
> Or, instead, we could provide macros to allow assignments, e.g.
>
> #define NUMA_HAS_NODE_ID(ms, index) \
> ((ms)->possible_cpus->cpus[index].props.has_node_id)
> #define NUMA_NODE_ID(ms, index) \
> ((ms)->possible_cpus->cpus[index].props.node_id)
ditto + worse debuggability
>
> Thanks,
> drew
>
