On 07/11/2018 05:25 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 05:05:07PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> On 07/11/2018 10:22 AM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
>>> We can safely validate the hugepage nodeset attribute at a define time.
>>> This validation is not done for already existing domains when the daemon
>>> is restarted.
>>>
>>> All the changes to the tests are necessary because we move the error
>>> from domain start into XML parse.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrd...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  src/conf/domain_conf.c                        | 32 +++++++++++++++++
>>>  src/qemu/qemu_command.c                       | 34 -------------------
>>>  .../seclabel-dynamic-none-relabel.xml         |  2 +-
>>>  tests/qemuxml2argvtest.c                      | 16 +++++----
>>>  .../qemuxml2xmloutdata/hugepages-pages10.xml  | 30 ----------------
>>>  tests/qemuxml2xmloutdata/hugepages-pages4.xml |  1 -
>>>  tests/qemuxml2xmloutdata/hugepages-pages9.xml | 31 -----------------
>>>  .../seclabel-dynamic-none-relabel.xml         |  2 +-
>>>  tests/qemuxml2xmltest.c                       |  3 --
>>>  9 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-)
>>>  delete mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2xmloutdata/hugepages-pages10.xml
>>>  delete mode 120000 tests/qemuxml2xmloutdata/hugepages-pages4.xml
>>>  delete mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2xmloutdata/hugepages-pages9.xml
>>>
>>> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
>>> index 7396616eda..20d67e7854 100644
>>> --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
>>> +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
>>> @@ -6104,6 +6104,35 @@ virDomainDefLifecycleActionValidate(const 
>>> virDomainDef *def)
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  
>>> +static int
>>> +virDomainDefMemtuneValidate(const virDomainDef *def)
>>> +{
>>> +    const virDomainMemtune *mem = &(def->mem);
>>> +    size_t i;
>>> +    ssize_t pos = virDomainNumaGetNodeCount(def->numa) - 1;
>>> +
>>> +    for (i = 0; i < mem->nhugepages; i++) {
>>> +        ssize_t nextBit;
>>> +
>>> +        if (!mem->hugepages[i].nodemask) {
>>> +            /* This is the master hugepage to use. Skip it as it has no
>>> +             * nodemask anyway. */
>>> +            continue;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +        nextBit = virBitmapNextSetBit(mem->hugepages[i].nodemask, pos);
>>> +        if (nextBit >= 0) {
>>
>> I think its fair to enable hugepages for node #0 which is always there
>> (even if not configured in domain XML). Just try to run 'numactl -H'
>> from a domain that has no <numa/> in its XML.
> 
> Well yes, linux always assumes that there is at least one NUMA node
> but other systems might not consider it the same.

I don't think the assumption is limited to Linux only. Even Windows
behave the same. For instance the following example shows that on
non-NUMA machine there is NUMA node #0.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/Memory/allocating-memory-from-a-numa-node

> 
>>
>>> +            virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_DETAIL,
>>> +                           _("hugepages: node %zd not found"),
>>> +                           nextBit);
>>> +            return -1;
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>
>> Also, I see that you're removing hugepages-pages9 test from xml2xml
>> test. But that is needed only because you disallowed nodeset='0' for
>> nonnuma domain. The real problem there is that the default page size has
> 
> That is already disallowed but only once you try to start such domain,
> I'm just moving this check from start time to parse time.

Yes because we have a bug in the code. So when you introduced the test
it was doomed to fail.

> 
> If you look into qemuxml2argvtest.c you will see that hugepages-pages9
> is expected to fail.
> 
>> no numa node to apply to, not nodeset='0'. I guess we need to check for
>> that too (or do we want to?)
> 
> That is yet different issue that can be addressed but it should not
> block this patch.

Well, maybe. I'm not saying your patches are wrong. Apart from allowing
nodeset='0' (which I think we should do, but I don't have that much of a
strong opinion there).

Michal

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list

Reply via email to