> From: wangyanan (Y) > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:18 AM > > > On 2021/5/19 3:22, Salil Mehta wrote: > >> From: Andrew Jones [mailto:drjo...@redhat.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:06 PM > >> To: Salil Mehta <salil.me...@huawei.com> > >> Cc: wangyanan (Y) <wangyana...@huawei.com>; Peter Maydell > >> <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>; Michael S . Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>; > >> Wanghaibin > >> (D) <wanghaibin.w...@huawei.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Shannon Zhao > >> <shannon.zha...@gmail.com>; qemu-...@nongnu.org; Alistair Francis > >> <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>; Zengtao (B) <prime.z...@hisilicon.com>; > >> yangyicong <yangyic...@huawei.com>; yuzenghui <yuzeng...@huawei.com>; Igor > >> Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>; zhukeqian <zhukeqi...@huawei.com>; lijiajie > (H) > >> <lijiaji...@huawei.com>; David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>; > Linuxarm > >> <linux...@huawei.com>; linux...@openeuler.org > >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: Add PPTT table > >> > >> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 06:34:08PM +0000, Salil Mehta wrote: > >>> Those benefits, when vcpu pinning is used, are the same benefits > >>>> as for the host, which already use PPTT tables to describe topology, even > >>>> though hot plug isn't supported. > >>> yes sure, you mean pinning vcpus according to the cpu topology for > >>> performance? > >> Yup > > Already Agreed :) > > > >>>> Now, if you're saying we should only generate tables for smp.cpus, not > >>> Correct. This is what I thought we must be doing even now > >>> > >>>> smp.maxcpus, because hot plug isn't supported anyway, then I see your > >>>> point. But, it'd be better to require smp.cpus == smp.maxcpus in our > >>>> smp_parse function to do that, which we've never done before, so we may > >>>> have trouble supporting existing command lines. > >>> I am trying to recall, if the vcpu Hotplug is not supported then can they > >>> ever be different? > >>> > >>> cpus = (threads * cores * sockets) > >>> > >>> static void smp_parse(MachineState *ms, QemuOpts *opts) > >>> { > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> if (sockets * cores * threads != ms->smp.max_cpus) { > >>> warn_report("Invalid CPU topology deprecated: " > >>> "sockets (%u) * cores (%u) * threads (%u) " > >>> "!= maxcpus (%u)", > >>> sockets, cores, threads, > >>> ms->smp.max_cpus); > >>> } > >>> [...] > >>> } > >>> > >>> Although, above check does not exit(1) and just warns on detecting invalid > >>> CPU topology. Not sure why? > >> Hmm, not sure what code you have there. I see this in > >> hw/core/machine.c:smp_parse > >> > >> if (ms->smp.max_cpus < cpus) { > >> error_report("maxcpus must be equal to or greater than smp"); > >> exit(1); > >> } > >> > >> if (sockets * cores * threads != ms->smp.max_cpus) { > >> error_report("Invalid CPU topology: " > >> "sockets (%u) * cores (%u) * threads (%u) " > >> "!= maxcpus (%u)", > >> sockets, cores, threads, > >> ms->smp.max_cpus); > >> exit(1); > >> } > >> > >>> Well if you think there are subtleties to support above implementation and > >>> we cannot do it now then sure it is your call. :) > Hi Salil, Drew, > >> The problem is that -smp 4,maxcpus=8 doesn't error out today, even though > >> it doesn't do anything. OTOH, -smp 4,cores=2 doesn't error out either, but > >> we're proposing that it should. Maybe we can start erroring out when > >> cpus != maxcpus until hot plug is supported? > > Agreed, both don't make any sense if hotplug is not supported and ideally > > should > > fail with error. We should block any such topology configuration. > In the ARM-specific function virt_smp_parse() (patch 9), there already > have been some restrictions for the given -smp configuration. > We now only allow: > -smp N > -smp maxcpus=M > -smp N, maxcpus=M > > -smp N, sockets=X, cores=Y > -smp N, sockets=X, cores=Y, threads=Z > > -smp maxcpus=M, sockets=X, cores=Y > -smp maxcpus=M, sockets=X, cores=Y, threads=Z > > -smp N, maxcpus=M, sockets=X, cores=Y > -smp N, maxcpus=M, sockets=X, cores=Y, threads=Z > > and disallow the other strange and rare formats that shouldn't be provided. > > It's reasonable to block the topology configuration which is not useful > currently. I will add the requirement for "cpus==maxcpus" in this fuction > if the possible conflict with existing command lines is not a big problem.
Hi Yanan, Makes sense. I did see your other patch-set in which cluster support has been added. Are we deferring that too? Thanks