> -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > Sent: 27 May 2020 16:12 > To: Anup Patel <anup.pa...@wdc.com> > Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>; qemu-ri...@nongnu.org; > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>; Sagar Karandikar > <sag...@eecs.berkeley.edu>; Anup Patel <a...@brainfault.org>; qemu- > de...@nongnu.org; Atish Patra <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; Alistair Francis > <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>; Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] hw: Add sockets_specified field in CpuTopology > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:01:21AM +0000, Anup Patel wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > > > Sent: 27 May 2020 15:21 > > > To: Anup Patel <anup.pa...@wdc.com> > > > Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>; Marcel Apfelbaum > > > <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com>; Peter Maydell > > > <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>; Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com>; > > > Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>; Sagar Karandikar > > > <sag...@eecs.berkeley.edu>; Atish Patra <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; > > > qemu-ri...@nongnu.org; qemu- de...@nongnu.org; Anup Patel > > > <a...@brainfault.org> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] hw: Add sockets_specified field in > > > CpuTopology > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 09:48:39AM +0000, Anup Patel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > > > > > Sent: 27 May 2020 14:16 > > > > > To: Anup Patel <anup.pa...@wdc.com> > > > > > Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>; Marcel Apfelbaum > > > > > <marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com>; Peter Maydell > > > > > <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>; Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com>; > > > > > Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>; Sagar Karandikar > > > > > <sag...@eecs.berkeley.edu>; Atish Patra <atish.pa...@wdc.com>; > > > > > qemu-ri...@nongnu.org; qemu- de...@nongnu.org; Anup Patel > > > > > <a...@brainfault.org> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] hw: Add sockets_specified field in > > > > > CpuTopology > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:12:22AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > > > > > > When "sockets" sub-option of "-smp" option is not specified, > > > > > > the > > > > > > smp_parse() function will assume one CPU per-socket and set > > > > > > the number of sockets equal to number of CPUs. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is counter-intuitive and we should allow machine > > > > > > emulation to decide default number of sockets when "sockets" > > > > > > sub-option is not specified. > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with this. Having the semantics of the -smp > > > > > option be the same across all targets/machines *is* intuitive. > > > > > Changing semantics of -smp per- machine will create a worse > > > > > experiance for people configuring QEMU as the configuration will > > > > > mean different things > > > depending on the machine choce. > > > > > > > > Okay then why don't we default to sockets=1 in smp_parse() when > "sockets" > > > > sub-options is not specified ?? This will make it uniform across > > > > machines. > > > > > > > > Is there a reason to by default have sockets=max_cpus ?? > > > > > > IIUC both of these questions are due to backwards compatibility with > > > pre- existing QEMU versions. > > > > I see that hw/x86/pc.c implements it's own smp_parse() callback. > > Can we take that route ?? > > > > We need to have sockets=1 by default for RISC-V machines because each > > socket has it's own interrupt controller and other peripherals. > > I guess the fact that smp_parse() exists as a callback pretty much says that > allowing machine type overrides of default semantics is permitted. So yeah, > using a smp_parse callback seems reasonable.
Thanks Danie, I will drop this patch and send v3 with different approach. Regards, Anup
