On 2022/3/18 21:27, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 21:00:35 +0800
"wangyanan (Y)" <wangyana...@huawei.com> wrote:

On 2022/3/18 17:56, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 14:23:34 +0800
"wangyanan (Y)" <wangyana...@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi Gavin,

On 2022/3/3 11:11, Gavin Shan wrote:
The default CPU-to-NUMA association is given by mc->get_default_cpu_node_id()
when it isn't provided explicitly. However, the CPU topology isn't fully
considered in the default association and it causes CPU topology broken
warnings on booting Linux guest.

For example, the following warning messages are observed when the Linux guest
is booted with the following command lines.

     /home/gavin/sandbox/qemu.main/build/qemu-system-aarch64 \
     -accel kvm -machine virt,gic-version=host               \
     -cpu host                                               \
     -smp 6,sockets=2,cores=3,threads=1                      \
     -m 1024M,slots=16,maxmem=64G                            \
     -object memory-backend-ram,id=mem0,size=128M            \
     -object memory-backend-ram,id=mem1,size=128M            \
     -object memory-backend-ram,id=mem2,size=128M            \
     -object memory-backend-ram,id=mem3,size=128M            \
     -object memory-backend-ram,id=mem4,size=128M            \
     -object memory-backend-ram,id=mem4,size=384M            \
     -numa node,nodeid=0,memdev=mem0                         \
     -numa node,nodeid=1,memdev=mem1                         \
     -numa node,nodeid=2,memdev=mem2                         \
     -numa node,nodeid=3,memdev=mem3                         \
     -numa node,nodeid=4,memdev=mem4                         \
     -numa node,nodeid=5,memdev=mem5
            :
     alternatives: patching kernel code
     BUG: arch topology borken
     the CLS domain not a subset of the MC domain
     <the above error log repeats>
     BUG: arch topology borken
     the DIE domain not a subset of the NODE domain

With current implementation of mc->get_default_cpu_node_id(), CPU#0 to CPU#5
are associated with NODE#0 to NODE#5 separately. That's incorrect because
CPU#0/1/2 should be associated with same NUMA node because they're seated
in same socket.

This fixes the issue by populating the CPU topology in 
virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids()
and considering the socket index when default CPU-to-NUMA association is given
in virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids(). With this applied, no more CPU topology broken
warnings are seen from the Linux guest. The 6 CPUs are associated with NODE#0/1,
but there are no CPUs associated with NODE#2/3/4/5.
It may be better to split this patch into two. One extends
virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids,
and the other fixes the numa node ID issue.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com>
---
    hw/arm/virt.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
    1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
index 46bf7ceddf..dee02b60fc 100644
--- a/hw/arm/virt.c
+++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
@@ -2488,7 +2488,9 @@ virt_cpu_index_to_props(MachineState *ms, unsigned 
cpu_index)
static int64_t virt_get_default_cpu_node_id(const MachineState *ms, int idx)
    {
-    return idx % ms->numa_state->num_nodes;
+    int64_t socket_id = ms->possible_cpus->cpus[idx].props.socket_id;
+
+    return socket_id % ms->numa_state->num_nodes;
    }
static const CPUArchIdList *virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids(MachineState *ms)
@@ -2496,6 +2498,7 @@ static const CPUArchIdList 
*virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids(MachineState *ms)
        int n;
        unsigned int max_cpus = ms->smp.max_cpus;
        VirtMachineState *vms = VIRT_MACHINE(ms);
+    MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(vms);
if (ms->possible_cpus) {
            assert(ms->possible_cpus->len == max_cpus);
@@ -2509,6 +2512,18 @@ static const CPUArchIdList 
*virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids(MachineState *ms)
            ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].type = ms->cpu_type;
            ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].arch_id =
                virt_cpu_mp_affinity(vms, n);
+
+        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_socket_id = true;
+        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.socket_id =
+            n / (ms->smp.dies * ms->smp.clusters *
+                ms->smp.cores * ms->smp.threads);
+        if (mc->smp_props.dies_supported) {
+            ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_die_id = true;
+            ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.die_id =
+                n / (ms->smp.clusters * ms->smp.cores * ms->smp.threads);
+        }
I still don't think we need to consider dies if it's certainly not
supported yet, IOW, we will never come into the if-branch.
We are populating arm-specific topo info instead of the generic,
we can probably uniformly update this part together with other
necessary places when we decide to support dies for arm virt
machine in the future. :)
it seems we do support dies and they are supposed to be numa boundary too,
so perhaps we should account for it when generating node-id.
Sorry, I actually meant that we currently don't support dies for arm, so
that
we will always have "mc->smp_props.dies_supported == False" here, which
makes the code a bit unnecessary.  dies are only supported for x86 for
now. :)

then perhaps add an assert() here, so that we would notice and fix this
place when dies_supported becomes true.
A simple assert() works here, I think.

Thanks,
Yanan
Thanks,
Yanan
+        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_core_id = true;
+        ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.core_id = n / ms->smp.threads;
            ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_thread_id = true;
            ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.thread_id = n;
        }
Maybe we should use the same algorithm in x86_topo_ids_from_idx
to populate the IDs, so that scope of socket-id will be [0, total_sockets),
scope of thread-id is [0, threads_per_core), and so on. Then with a
group of socket/cluster/core/thread-id, we determine a CPU.

Suggestion: For the long term, is it necessary now to add similar topo
info infrastructure for ARM, such as X86CPUTopoInfo, X86CPUTopoIDs,
x86_topo_ids_from_idx?

Thanks,
Yanan
.
.


Reply via email to