On Mon, 29 May 2017 10:36:47 -0300
Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 03:12:45PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 May 2017 12:46:25 -0300
> > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:29:50PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
> > > > index 2482c63..420c8c4 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/core/machine.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/core/machine.c
> > > > @@ -389,6 +389,102 @@ HotpluggableCPUList
> > > > *machine_query_hotpluggable_cpus(MachineState *machine)
> > > [...]
> > > > +void machine_set_cpu_numa_node(MachineState *machine,
> > > > + const CpuInstanceProperties *props,
> > > > Error **errp)
> > > > +{
> > > [...]
> > > > + /* force board to initialize possible_cpus if it hasn't been done
> > > > yet */
> > > > + mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids(machine);
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c
> > > > index 7182481..7db5dde 100644
> > > > --- a/numa.c
> > > > +++ b/numa.c
> > > > @@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ static void parse_numa_node(MachineState *ms,
> > > > NumaNodeOptions *node,
> > > > exit(1);
> > > > }
> > > > for (cpus = node->cpus; cpus; cpus = cpus->next) {
> > > > + CpuInstanceProperties props;
> > > > if (cpus->value >= max_cpus) {
> > > > error_setg(errp,
> > > > "CPU index (%" PRIu16 ")"
> > > > @@ -178,6 +179,10 @@ static void parse_numa_node(MachineState *ms,
> > > > NumaNodeOptions *node,
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > > bitmap_set(numa_info[nodenr].node_cpu, cpus->value, 1);
> > > > + props = mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props(ms, cpus->value);
> > > > + props.node_id = nodenr;
> > > > + props.has_node_id = true;
> > > > + machine_set_cpu_numa_node(ms, &props, &error_fatal);
> > >
> > > This triggers a call to possible_cpu_arch_ids() before
> > > nb_numa_nodes is set to the actual number of NUMA nodes in the
> > > machine, breaking the "node_id = ... % nb_numa_nodes"
> > > initialization logic in pc, virt, and spapr.
> > >
> > > The initialization ordering between possible_cpus and NUMA data
> > > structures looks very subtle and fragile. I still don't see an
> > > obvious way to untangle that.
> > It's unfixable unless we require specific ordering on CLI,
> > i.e. first go all '-numa node,nodeid=[...]' options and only then
> > the rest of [-numa node,cpus|cpu].
> > We can do that for '-numa cpu' (probably should do enforce it for
> > this new option anyway for saner CLI)
> >
> > but not for '-numa node,cpus' as it will break existing users
> > that do not declare nodes first.
> >
> > > I suggest moving the default-NUMA-mapping code to a separate
> > > machine class method, instead of relying on
> > > possible_cpu_arch_ids() to initialize node_id.
> > So as you suggest we have to postpone default values initialization
> > till all the options are parsed:
> >
> > 1: strait-forward additional machine callback called from
> > machine_run_board_init()
> >
> > or:
> >
> > 2: save extra callback and recalculate not yet set props.node_id-s
> > in possible_cpu_arch_ids() if nb_numa_nodes is changed since
> > the last invocation of possible_cpu_arch_ids()
> >
> > which one would you prefer?
>
> Option 1 sounds simpler to me.
ok, I'll include fix on cleanups series respin.
