On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 05:37:42PM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote: > On 2021/6/30 16:30, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 02:36:31PM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote: > > > Hi Drew, Igor, > > > > > > I have a question below, hope for some explanation... :) > > > > > > I'm trying to rearrange the smp_parse() helper to make it more scalable. > > > But I wonder why we are currently using maxcpus to calculate the missing > > > sockets while using *cpus* to calculate the missing cores and threads? > > > > > > This makes the following cmdlines work fine, > > > -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12 <==> -smp > > > cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=12,cores=1,threads=1 > > > -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12,cores=6 <==> -smp > > > cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=2,cores=6,threads=1 > > > -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12,threads=2 <==> -smp > > > cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=6,cores=1,threads=2 > > > > > > but the following ones break the invalid CPU topology check: > > > -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=2 <==> -smp > > > cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=2,cores=4,threads=1 > > > -smp cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=4,threads=1 <==> -smp > > > cpus=8,maxcpus=12,sockets=4,cores=2,threads=1 > > > -smp maxcpus=12 <==> -smp cpus=1,maxcpus=12,sockets=1,cores=1,threads=1 > > > -smp maxcpus=12,sockets=2 <==> -smp > > > cpus=2,maxcpus=12,sockets=2,cores=1,threads=1 > > > > > > IMO we should uniformly use maxcpus to calculate the missing sockets > > > also cores and threads, which will allow all the above cmdlines work. > > > Or maybe I missed something? I read the related discussion in [1] but > > > didn't get an unambiguous conclusion. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/1535553121-80352-1-git-send-email-imamm...@redhat.com/ > > I agree that maxcpus should be used for all calculations. > Thanks. From my view uniformly using maxcpus to calculate the missing > values won't break any existing working cmdlines, but will allow some now > being invalid and incomplete cmdlines to be valid. I will use maxcpus and > test the parser for all possible parameter collections. > > I think we need > > to write -smp parsing from scratch using a set of clean requirements and > > then use the machine compat stuff to switch to it. And also properly > > document it with something like "Since 6.2..." > I agree to rewrite the -smp parsing. But what's the meaning of clean > requirements? > Sorry I didn't get it.
I think -smp evolved without all the details considered up front. Now that we've considered the details/requirements more completely, then let's apply our knowledge of them to an implementation that gets them all covered. Here's a quick list from the top of my head, there might be some missing - maxcpus should be used for computation of missing values - we should assume cores over sockets over threads - we should allow extending the topology with arch-specific members, such as dies, which will always default to 1 when not provided, rather than be computed - we should store the results in the smp machine properties Thanks, drew > > Thanks, > Yanan > . > > > > > Regards, > > > Yanan > > > . > > > > > > On 2021/6/28 16:58, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 04:43:05PM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > On 2021/6/23 1:39, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 07:29:34PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 06:14:25PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:40:13PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:29:15 +0200 > > > > > > > > > Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 03:10:57PM +0100, Daniel P. > > > > > > > > > > Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 10:04:52PM +0800, wangyanan (Y) > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2021/6/22 20:41, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 08:31:22PM +0800, wangyanan > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Y) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2021/6/22 19:46, Andrew Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 11:18:09AM +0100, Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:34:06PM +0800, Yanan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is v4 of the series [1] that I posted to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > introduce support for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > generating cpu topology descriptions to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guest. Comments are welcome! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Description: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once the view of an accurate virtual cpu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > topology is provided to guest, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a well-designed vCPU pinning to the pCPU > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we may get a huge benefit, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g., the scheduling performance improvement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See Dario Faggioli's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > research and the related performance tests in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] for reference. So here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we go, this patch series introduces cpu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > topology support for ARM platform. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In this series, instead of quietly enforcing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for the latest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > machine type, a new parameter "expose=on|off" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in -smp command line is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > introduced to leave QEMU users a choice to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > decide whether to enable the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature or not. This will allow the feature > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to work on different machine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > types and also ideally compat with already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in-use -smp command lines. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also we make much stricter requirement for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the topology configuration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with "expose=on". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seeing this 'expose=on' parameter feels to me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like we're adding a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "make-it-work=yes" parameter. IMHO this is just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something that should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be done by default for the current machine type > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version and beyond. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see the need for a parameter to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turnthis on, especially since > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is being made architecture specific. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yanan, we never discussed an "expose" parameter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the previous versions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of this series. We discussed a "strict" parameter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > though, which would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allow existing command lines to "work" using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumptions of what the user > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meant and strict=on users to get what they mean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or an error saying that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they asked for something that won't work or would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > require unreasonable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumptions. Why was this changed to an "expose" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parameter? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we indeed discuss a new "strict" parameter but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not a "expose" in v2 [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of this series. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/qemu-devel/patch/20210413080745.33004-6-wangyana...@huawei.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And in the discussion, we hoped things would work > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like below with "strict" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parameter: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Users who want to describe cpu topology should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide cmdline like > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -smp strict=on,cpus=4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and in this case we require an more accurate -smp > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then generate the cpu topology description through > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ACPI/DT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While without a strict description, no cpu topology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > description would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be generated, so they get nothing through ACPI/DT. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that the "strict" parameter actually > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serves as a knob to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turn on/off the exposure of topology, and this is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the reason I changed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the use of 'strict=on' is no better than > > > > > > > > > > > > > expose=on IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I give QEMU a cli > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -smp cpus=4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then I expect that topology to be exposed to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > guest. I shouldn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > have to add extra flags to make that happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the thread, it seems the concern was > > > > > > > > > > > > > around the fact that > > > > > > > > > > > > > the settings were not honoured historically and thus > > > > > > > > > > > > > the CLI values > > > > > > > > > > > > > could be garbage. ie -smp > > > > > > > > > > > > > cpus=4,sockets=8,cores=3,thread=9 > > > > > > > > > > > > This "-smp cpus=4,sockets=8,cores=3,threads=9" > > > > > > > > > > > > behaviors as a wrong > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration, and the parsing function already report > > > > > > > > > > > > error for this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We hope more complete config like "-smp > > > > > > > > > > > > 4,sockets=2,cores=2,threads=1" > > > > > > > > > > > > for exposure of topology, and the incomplete ones like > > > > > > > > > > > > "-smp 4,sockets=1" > > > > > > > > > > > > or "-smp 4, cores=1" are not acceptable any more > > > > > > > > > > > > because we are starting > > > > > > > > > > > > to expose the topology. > > > > > > > > > > > Incomplete specified topologies *are* acceptable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The smp_parse method will automatically fill in any > > > > > > > > > > > missing values. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ie, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -smp 4,cores=1 > > > > > > > > > > > -smp cores=1 > > > > > > > > > > > -smp threads=1 > > > > > > > > > > > -smp sockets=4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are all functionally identical to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -smp 4,sockets=4,cores=1,dies=1,threads=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The QEMU man page says this explicitly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the PC target, the number of > > > > > > > > > > > cores per die, the > > > > > > > > > > > number of threads per cores, the number of dies > > > > > > > > > > > per packages and the > > > > > > > > > > > total number of sockets can be specified. Missing > > > > > > > > > > > values will be > > > > > > > > > > > computed. If any on the three values is given, the > > > > > > > > > > > total number of > > > > > > > > > > > CPUs n can be omitted. > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't say how it will compute them though, which for > > > > > > > > > > the default > > > > > > > > > > smp_parse and for x86 is to prefer sockets over cores over > > > > > > > > > > threads. > > > > > > > > > > That's not necessarily what the user expects. IMO, we need > > > > > > > > > > a 'strict=on' > > > > > > > > > > parameter that doesn't allow any collection of smp > > > > > > > > > > parameters which > > > > > > > > > > require unreasonable assumptions. Reasonable assumptions > > > > > > > > > > are threads=1, > > > > > > > > > > when threads is not specified and the rest of the math adds > > > > > > > > > > up. Also, > > > > > > > > > > maxcpus == cpus when maxcpus isn't specified is reasonable. > > > > > > > > > > But, it's not > > > > > > > > > > as reasonable to decide how to divide cores among sockets > > > > > > > > > > or to assume > > > > > > > > > > threads=1 when only sockets and cores are given. How do we > > > > > > > > > > know the user > > > > > > > > > > didn't forget to specify threads if we can't check the math? > > > > > > > > > or just outlaw all invalid topologies incl. incomplete by > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > (without requiring extra option), and permit them only for > > > > > > > > > old machine > > > > > > > > > types ()using compat machinery) without topo info provided to > > > > > > > > > guest. > > > > > > > > > And maybe later deprecate invalid topologies altogether. > > > > > > > > This feels like it is creating pain for users to fix a problem > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > isn't shown to actually be causing any common issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We've supposed that users are having problems when forgetting to > > > > > > > > specify "threads" and not having the compute value be desirable, > > > > > > > > but where are the bug reports to back this up ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The partial topologies are valid and have well defined > > > > > > > > semantics. > > > > > > > > Those semantics may not match everyone's preference, but that > > > > > > > > doesn't make them invalid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we adopt the [undocumented] semantics of x86 for arm, then we > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > surprise some users that expect e.g. '-smp 16' to give them a > > > > > > > single > > > > > > > socket with 16 cores, because they'll start getting 16 sockets > > > > > > > with 1 > > > > > > > core each. That's because if we don't describe a topology to an > > > > > > > arm linux > > > > > > > guest then it assumes cores. Maybe we shouldn't worry about this, > > > > > > > but I'd > > > > > > > prefer we require explicit inputs from users and, if necessary, > > > > > > > for them > > > > > > > to explicitly opt-in to requiring those explicit inputs. > > > > > > Even for x86, defaulting to maximising sockets over cores is > > > > > > sub-optimal. > > > > > > In real world x86 hardware it is very rare to have sockets > 2 or > > > > > > 4. For > > > > > > large CPU counts, you generally have large cores-per-socket counts > > > > > > on x86. > > > > > > > > > > > > The QEMU preference for sockets over cores on x86 (and PPC too IIUC) > > > > > > is a fairly arbitrary historical decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > It can cause problems with guest OS licensing because both Windows > > > > > > and RHEL have been known to charge differently for sockets vs cores, > > > > > > with high core counts being cheaper. > > > > > > > > > > > > We are not tied into the precise behaviour of the computed topology > > > > > > values, as we have no made any promises. All that's required is that > > > > > > we keep ABI compat for existing machine types. > > > > > If based on this point of view that we haven't made any promises for > > > > > the > > > > > precise behavior of the computed topology, things may get much easier. > > > > > I have the following understanding (also a proposal): > > > > > > > > > > We will introduce the support for exposing cpu topology since machine > > > > > type 6.2 and we will also describe the computed topology for the > > > > > guest. > > > > > We will not make any stricter parsing logic, however the -smp content > > > > > in > > > > > qemu-options.hx should be rearranged to clearly explain how the > > > > > missing > > > > > values will exactly be computed. And this is what QEMU is responsible > > > > > for. > > > > > > > > > > We know that a well designed cpu topology configuration can gain much > > > > > benefit for the guest, while a badly designed one will also probably > > > > > cause > > > > > negative impact. But the users should be responsible for the design > > > > > of the > > > > > -smp cmdlines. If they are using an incomplete cmdline for a 6.2 > > > > > machine, > > > > > then they should have known what the computed values will be and that > > > > > the computed topology will be exposed to the guest. > > > > > > So we could decide to change the computed topology so that it > > > > > > prefers > > > > > > high core counts, over sockets, whem using new machine types only. > > > > > > That would seem to benefit all arches, by making QEMU more > > > > > > reflective > > > > > > of real world CPUs topology. > > > > > If we really decide to prefer cores over sockets over threads for new > > > > > machine > > > > > types, then I think we should also record this change in > > > > > qemu-option.hx. > > > > > > > > > I agree. The proposal sounds good to me. I'd like to hear Eduardo's > > > > opinion too (CC'ed). > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > drew > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > . >