On 6/17/20 4:19 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 6/10/20 8:35 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
changes in v2:
- removed patch 5/5
Gitlab link: https://gitlab.com/danielhb/libvirt/-/tree/vcpus_numa_v2
v1 link: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-June/msg00016.html
Daniel Henrique Barboza (4):
numa_conf.c: add helper functions for cpumap operations
qemu_domain.c: NUMA CPUs auto-fill for incomplete topologies
qemuxml2xmltest.c: add NUMA vcpus auto fill tests
formatdomain.html.in: document the NUMA cpus auto fill feature
docs/formatdomain.html.in | 11 ++++-
src/conf/numa_conf.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++
src/conf/numa_conf.h | 3 ++
src/libvirt_private.syms | 1 +
src/qemu/qemu_domain.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++
src/qemu/qemu_domain.h | 4 ++
src/qemu/qemu_driver.c | 9 ++++
.../numavcpus-topology-mismatch.xml | 37 +++++++++++++++
...avcpus-topology-mismatch.x86_64-latest.xml | 38 +++++++++++++++
tests/qemuxml2xmltest.c | 1 +
10 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 tests/qemuxml2argvdata/numavcpus-topology-mismatch.xml
create mode 100644
tests/qemuxml2xmloutdata/numavcpus-topology-mismatch.x86_64-latest.xml
Patches look good to me.
Thanks for the review!
My only concern is that I plan to introduce vCPU-less NUMA nodes [1] (because
of HMAT [2]). But I guess if user assigns vCPUs to NUMA nodes fully, then we
still can have vCPU-less nodes because your code would be NOP, right?
It'll be a NOP because the sum of CPUs in the NUMA topology would be equal to
the
maxcpus declared in <vcpus>
Now, for the new use case you're going to introduce, you'll need to either
(1) forbid incomplete NUMA nodes entirely for this case or (2) check how QEMU
fills in the vcpus in this scenario.
For (2) my brutal uneducated guess is that the behavior would be similar, but
populating
the first non-cpuless NUMA node (which wouldn't be necessarily node0). This can
be
arranged by creating a function that returns whether a node is cpu-less and
using the
first non-cpuless cpu in the qemuDomainDefNumaCPUsRectify() function (patch 2)
instead
of node0. You'll want to check it with QEMU first (Igor Mammedov perhaps?) to
ensure
that this is what QEMU would do in these cases.
TBH I believe that cpu-less NUMA nodes is quite an advanced feature and (1) is
a good approach for that, specially because there is no existing guests in the
wild that would be impacted by this restriction since Libvirt does not support
it yet.
Thanks,
DHB
Michal
1: https://gitlab.com/MichalPrivoznik/libvirt/-/tree/hmat
2: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-January/msg00422.html
