Hi Igor,
On 4/20/22 4:32 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 10:09:18 +0800
Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
Currently, the SMP configuration isn't considered when the CPU
topology is populated. In this case, it's impossible to provide
the default CPU-to-NUMA mapping or association based on the socket
ID of the given CPU.
This takes account of SMP configuration when the CPU topology
is populated. The die ID for the given CPU isn't assigned since
it's not supported on arm/virt machine. Besides, the used SMP
configuration in qtest/numa-test/aarch64_numa_cpu() is corrcted
to avoid testing failure
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Yanan Wang <wangyana...@huawei.com>
---
hw/arm/virt.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
tests/qtest/numa-test.c | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c
index d2e5ecd234..5443ecae92 100644
--- a/hw/arm/virt.c
+++ b/hw/arm/virt.c
@@ -2505,6 +2505,7 @@ 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);
@@ -2518,8 +2519,20 @@ 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);
+
+ assert(!mc->smp_props.dies_supported);
+ ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_socket_id = true;
+ ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.socket_id =
+ (n / (ms->smp.clusters * ms->smp.cores * ms->smp.threads));
+ ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_cluster_id = true;
+ ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.cluster_id =
+ (n / (ms->smp.cores * ms->smp.threads)) % ms->smp.clusters;
+ ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_core_id = true;
+ ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.core_id =
+ (n / ms->smp.threads) % ms->smp.cores;
ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.has_thread_id = true;
- ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.thread_id = n;
+ ms->possible_cpus->cpus[n].props.thread_id =
+ n % ms->smp.threads;
}
return ms->possible_cpus;
}
diff --git a/tests/qtest/numa-test.c b/tests/qtest/numa-test.c
index 90bf68a5b3..aeda8c774c 100644
--- a/tests/qtest/numa-test.c
+++ b/tests/qtest/numa-test.c
@@ -223,7 +223,8 @@ static void aarch64_numa_cpu(const void *data)
QTestState *qts;
g_autofree char *cli = NULL;
- cli = make_cli(data, "-machine smp.cpus=2 "
+ cli = make_cli(data, "-machine "
+ "smp.cpus=2,smp.sockets=1,smp.clusters=1,smp.cores=1,smp.threads=2 "
Is cluster-less config possible?
(looks like it used to work before and it doesn't after this series)
Nope, it's impossible. This specific test case uses arm/virt machine
where cluster is always supported.mc->smp_props.clusters_supported
has been set to true in hw/arm/virt.c::virt_machine_class_init().
Exactly, the changes to virt_possible_cpu_arch_ids() included in this patch
breaks
the test. It's why the fix to qtest/numa-test has been squashed to this patch,
to
make it 'bit bisect' friendly as Yanan suggested.
"-numa node,nodeid=0,memdev=ram -numa node,nodeid=1 "
"-numa cpu,node-id=1,thread-id=0 "
"-numa cpu,node-id=0,thread-id=1");
Thanks,
Gavin
