Re: Advice needed on SMP regression after cpu_core_mask change
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 01:05:21PM -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
>
>
> On 3/17/21 12:30 PM, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> > On 3/17/21 2:00 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Patch 4bce545903fa ("powerpc/topology: Update topology_core_cpumask")
> > > introduced
> > > a regression in both upstream and RHEL downstream kernels [1]. The
> > > assumption made
> > > in the commit:
> > >
> > > "Further analysis shows that cpu_core_mask and cpu_cpu_mask for any CPU
> > > would be
> > > equal on Power"
> > >
> > > Doesn't seem to be true. After this commit, QEMU is now unable to set
> > > single NUMA
> > > node SMP topologies such as:
> > >
> > > -smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
> > >
> > > lscpu will give the following output in this case:
> > >
> > > # lscpu
> > > Architecture: ppc64le
> > > Byte Order: Little Endian
> > > CPU(s): 8
> > > On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
> > > Thread(s) per core: 2
> > > Core(s) per socket: 4
> > > Socket(s): 1
> > > NUMA node(s): 1
> > > Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
> > > Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> > > Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> > > Virtualization type: para
> > > L1d cache: 32K
> > > L1i cache: 32K
> > > NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-7
> > >
> > >
> > > This is happening because the macro cpu_cpu_mask(cpu) expands to
> > > cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(cpu)), which in turn expands to
> > > node_to_cpumask_map[node].
> > > node_to_cpumask_map is a NUMA array that maps CPUs to NUMA nodes (Aneesh
> > > is on CC to
> > > correct me if I'm wrong). We're now associating sockets to NUMA nodes
> > > directly.
> > >
> > > If I add a second NUMA node then I can get the intended smp topology:
> > >
> > > -smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
> > > -numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
> > > -numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
> > >
> > > # lscpu
> > > Architecture: ppc64le
> > > Byte Order: Little Endian
> > > CPU(s): 8
> > > On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
> > > Thread(s) per core: 2
> > > Core(s) per socket: 2
> > > Socket(s): 2
> > > NUMA node(s): 2
> > > Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
> > > Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> > > Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> > > Virtualization type: para
> > > L1d cache: 32K
> > > L1i cache: 32K
> > > NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
> > > NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
> > >
> > >
> > > However, if I try a single socket with multiple NUMA nodes topology,
> > > which is the case
> > > of Power10, e.g.:
> > >
> > >
> > > -smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=4,threads=2,sockets=1
> > > -numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
> > > -numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the result:
> > >
> > > # lscpu
> > > Architecture: ppc64le
> > > Byte Order: Little Endian
> > > CPU(s): 8
> > > On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
> > > Thread(s) per core: 2
> > > Core(s) per socket: 2
> > > Socket(s): 2
> > > NUMA node(s): 2
> > > Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
> > > Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> > > Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> > > Virtualization type: para
> > > L1d cache: 32K
> > > L1i cache: 32K
> > > NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
> > > NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
> > >
> > >
> > > This confirms my suspicions that, at this moment, we're making sockets ==
> > > NUMA nodes.
> >
> > Yes. I don't think we can do better on PAPR and the above examples
> > seem to confirm that the "sockets" definition is simply ignored.
> > > Cedric, the reason I'm CCing you is because this is related to
> > > ibm,chip-id. The commit
> > > after the one that caused the regression, 4ca234a9cbd7c3a65
> > > ("powerpc/smp: Stop updating
> > > cpu_core_mask"), is erasing the code that calculated cpu_core_mask.
> > > cpu_core_mask, despite
> > > its shortcomings that caused its removal, was giving a precise SMP
> > > topology. And it was
> > > using physical_package_id/'ibm,chip-id' for that.
> >
> > ibm,chip-id is a no-no on pSeries. I guess this is inherent to PAPR which
> > is hiding a lot of the underlying HW and topology. May be we are trying
> > to reconcile two orthogonal views of machine virtualization ...
> >
> > > Checking in QEMU I can say that the ibm,chip-id calculation is the only
> > > place in the code
> > > that cares about cores per socket information. The kernel is now ignoring
> > > that, starting
> > > on 4bce545903fa, and now QEMU is unable to provide this info to the guest.
> > >
> > > If we're not going to use ibm,chip-id any longer, which seems sensible
> > > given that PAPR does
> > > not declare it, we need another way of letting the guest know how much
> > > cores per socket
> > > we want.
> > The RTAS call "ibm,get-system-parameter" with token "Processor Module
> > Information"
Re: Advice needed on SMP regression after cpu_core_mask change
On 3/18/21 10:42 AM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
* Daniel Henrique Barboza [2021-03-17 10:00:34]:
Hello,
Patch 4bce545903fa ("powerpc/topology: Update topology_core_cpumask") introduced
a regression in both upstream and RHEL downstream kernels [1]. The assumption
made
in the commit:
"Further analysis shows that cpu_core_mask and cpu_cpu_mask for any CPU would be
equal on Power"
Doesn't seem to be true. After this commit, QEMU is now unable to set single
NUMA
node SMP topologies such as:
-smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
What does it mean for a NUMA to have more than one sockets?
If they are all part of the same node, there are at local distance to each
other. cache is per core. So what resources are shared by the Sockets that
are part of the same NUMA. And how does Userspace/ application make use of
the same.
Honestly, I sympathize with the idea that multiple sockets in the same NUMA
node being "weird". QEMU is accepting this kind of topology since forever
because we didn't pay attention to these other details.
I don't see any problems adding more constraints that makes sense in the
virtual layer, as long as the constraints make sense and are documented.
Putting multiple sockets in a single NUMA node seems like a fair restriction.
Please don't mistake this as attempt to downplay your report but a honest
attempt to better understand the situation.
It's cool. Ask away.
For example, if the socket denotes the hemisphere logic in P10, then can we
see if the coregroup feature can be used. "Coregroup" is suppose to mean a
set of cores within a NUMA that have some characteristics and there can be
multiple coregroups within a NUMA. We add that mostly to mimic hemisphere in
P10. However the number of coregroups in a NUMA is not exported to userspace
at this time.
I see. I thought that the presence of the hemispheres inside the chip would
justify more than one NUMA node inside the chip, meaning that a chip/socket
would have more than one NUMA nodes inside of it.
If that's not the case then I guess socket == NUMA node is still valid in
P10 as well. The last 'lscpu' example I gave here, claiming that this would
be a Power10 scenario, doesn't represent P10 after all.
However if each Socket is associated with a memory and node distance, then
should they be NUMA?
Can you provide me with the unique ibm,chip-ids in your 2 NUMA, 4 node case?
Does this cause an performance issues with the guest/application?
I can fetch some values, but we're trying to move out of it since it's not on
the
pseries spec (PAPR). Perhaps with these restrictions we can live without
ibm,chip-id in QEMU.
Till your report, I was under the impression that NUMAs == Sockets.
After reading and discussing about it, I think the sensible thing to do is to
put this same constraint in QEMU.
In theory it would be nice to let the virtual machine to have whatever topology
it
wants, multiple sockets in the same NUMA domain and so on, but in the end we're
emulating Power hardware. If Power hardware - and the powerpc kernel - operates
under these assumptions, then I don't see much point into allowing users to
set unrealistic virtual CPU topologies that will be misrepresented in the
kernel.
I'll try this restriction in QEMU and see how upstream kernel behaves, with
and without ibm,chip-id being advertised in the DT.
Thanks,
DHB
lscpu will give the following output in this case:
# lscpu
Architecture:ppc64le
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 4
Socket(s): 1
NUMA node(s):1
Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor: KVM
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-7
This is happening because the macro cpu_cpu_mask(cpu) expands to
cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(cpu)), which in turn expands to
node_to_cpumask_map[node].
node_to_cpumask_map is a NUMA array that maps CPUs to NUMA nodes (Aneesh is on
CC to
correct me if I'm wrong). We're now associating sockets to NUMA nodes directly.
If I add a second NUMA node then I can get the intended smp topology:
-smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
-numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
-numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
# lscpu
Architecture:ppc64le
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 2
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s):2
Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor: KVM
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
However, if I try a single socket with multiple NUMA nodes topology, which is
the case
of Power10, e.g.:
-smp
Re: Advice needed on SMP regression after cpu_core_mask change
* Daniel Henrique Barboza [2021-03-17 10:00:34]:
> Hello,
>
> Patch 4bce545903fa ("powerpc/topology: Update topology_core_cpumask")
> introduced
> a regression in both upstream and RHEL downstream kernels [1]. The assumption
> made
> in the commit:
>
> "Further analysis shows that cpu_core_mask and cpu_cpu_mask for any CPU would
> be
> equal on Power"
>
> Doesn't seem to be true. After this commit, QEMU is now unable to set single
> NUMA
> node SMP topologies such as:
>
> -smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
What does it mean for a NUMA to have more than one sockets?
If they are all part of the same node, there are at local distance to each
other. cache is per core. So what resources are shared by the Sockets that
are part of the same NUMA. And how does Userspace/ application make use of
the same.
Please don't mistake this as attempt to downplay your report but a honest
attempt to better understand the situation.
For example, if the socket denotes the hemisphere logic in P10, then can we
see if the coregroup feature can be used. "Coregroup" is suppose to mean a
set of cores within a NUMA that have some characteristics and there can be
multiple coregroups within a NUMA. We add that mostly to mimic hemisphere in
P10. However the number of coregroups in a NUMA is not exported to userspace
at this time.
However if each Socket is associated with a memory and node distance, then
should they be NUMA?
Can you provide me with the unique ibm,chip-ids in your 2 NUMA, 4 node case?
Does this cause an performance issues with the guest/application?
Till your report, I was under the impression that NUMAs == Sockets.
>
> lscpu will give the following output in this case:
>
> # lscpu
> Architecture:ppc64le
> Byte Order: Little Endian
> CPU(s): 8
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
> Thread(s) per core: 2
> Core(s) per socket: 4
> Socket(s): 1
> NUMA node(s):1
> Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
> Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> Virtualization type: para
> L1d cache: 32K
> L1i cache: 32K
> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-7
>
>
> This is happening because the macro cpu_cpu_mask(cpu) expands to
> cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(cpu)), which in turn expands to
> node_to_cpumask_map[node].
> node_to_cpumask_map is a NUMA array that maps CPUs to NUMA nodes (Aneesh is
> on CC to
> correct me if I'm wrong). We're now associating sockets to NUMA nodes
> directly.
>
> If I add a second NUMA node then I can get the intended smp topology:
>
> -smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
> -numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
> -numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
>
> # lscpu
> Architecture:ppc64le
> Byte Order: Little Endian
> CPU(s): 8
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
> Thread(s) per core: 2
> Core(s) per socket: 2
> Socket(s): 2
> NUMA node(s):2
> Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
> Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> Virtualization type: para
> L1d cache: 32K
> L1i cache: 32K
> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
> NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
>
>
> However, if I try a single socket with multiple NUMA nodes topology, which is
> the case
> of Power10, e.g.:
>
>
> -smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=4,threads=2,sockets=1
> -numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
> -numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
>
>
> This is the result:
>
> # lscpu
> Architecture:ppc64le
> Byte Order: Little Endian
> CPU(s): 8
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
> Thread(s) per core: 2
> Core(s) per socket: 2
> Socket(s): 2
> NUMA node(s):2
> Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
> Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> Virtualization type: para
> L1d cache: 32K
> L1i cache: 32K
> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
> NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
>
>
> This confirms my suspicions that, at this moment, we're making sockets ==
> NUMA nodes.
>
>
> Cedric, the reason I'm CCing you is because this is related to ibm,chip-id.
> The commit
> after the one that caused the regression, 4ca234a9cbd7c3a65 ("powerpc/smp:
> Stop updating
> cpu_core_mask"), is erasing the code that calculated cpu_core_mask.
> cpu_core_mask, despite
> its shortcomings that caused its removal, was giving a precise SMP topology.
> And it was
> using physical_package_id/'ibm,chip-id' for that.
>
> Checking in QEMU I can say that the ibm,chip-id calculation is the only place
> in the code
> that cares about cores per socket information. The kernel is now ignoring
> that, starting
> on 4bce545903fa, and now QEMU is unable to provide this info to the guest.
>
> If we're not going to use ibm,chip-id any longer, which seems sensible given
> that PAPR does
> not declare it, we need another way of letting the guest know how
Re: Advice needed on SMP regression after cpu_core_mask change
On 3/17/21 12:30 PM, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 3/17/21 2:00 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
Hello,
Patch 4bce545903fa ("powerpc/topology: Update topology_core_cpumask") introduced
a regression in both upstream and RHEL downstream kernels [1]. The assumption
made
in the commit:
"Further analysis shows that cpu_core_mask and cpu_cpu_mask for any CPU would be
equal on Power"
Doesn't seem to be true. After this commit, QEMU is now unable to set single
NUMA
node SMP topologies such as:
-smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
lscpu will give the following output in this case:
# lscpu
Architecture: ppc64le
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 4
Socket(s): 1
NUMA node(s): 1
Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor: KVM
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-7
This is happening because the macro cpu_cpu_mask(cpu) expands to
cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(cpu)), which in turn expands to
node_to_cpumask_map[node].
node_to_cpumask_map is a NUMA array that maps CPUs to NUMA nodes (Aneesh is on
CC to
correct me if I'm wrong). We're now associating sockets to NUMA nodes directly.
If I add a second NUMA node then I can get the intended smp topology:
-smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
-numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
-numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
# lscpu
Architecture: ppc64le
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 2
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s): 2
Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor: KVM
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
However, if I try a single socket with multiple NUMA nodes topology, which is
the case
of Power10, e.g.:
-smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=4,threads=2,sockets=1
-numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
-numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
This is the result:
# lscpu
Architecture: ppc64le
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 2
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s): 2
Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor: KVM
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
This confirms my suspicions that, at this moment, we're making sockets == NUMA
nodes.
Yes. I don't think we can do better on PAPR and the above examples
seem to confirm that the "sockets" definition is simply ignored.
Cedric, the reason I'm CCing you is because this is related to ibm,chip-id. The
commit
after the one that caused the regression, 4ca234a9cbd7c3a65 ("powerpc/smp: Stop
updating
cpu_core_mask"), is erasing the code that calculated cpu_core_mask.
cpu_core_mask, despite
its shortcomings that caused its removal, was giving a precise SMP topology.
And it was
using physical_package_id/'ibm,chip-id' for that.
ibm,chip-id is a no-no on pSeries. I guess this is inherent to PAPR which
is hiding a lot of the underlying HW and topology. May be we are trying
to reconcile two orthogonal views of machine virtualization ...
Checking in QEMU I can say that the ibm,chip-id calculation is the only place
in the code
that cares about cores per socket information. The kernel is now ignoring that,
starting
on 4bce545903fa, and now QEMU is unable to provide this info to the guest.
If we're not going to use ibm,chip-id any longer, which seems sensible given
that PAPR does
not declare it, we need another way of letting the guest know how much cores
per socket
we want.
The RTAS call "ibm,get-system-parameter" with token "Processor Module
Information" returns that kind of information :
2 byte binary number (N) of module types followed by N module specifiers of
the form:
2 byte binary number (M) of sockets of this module type
2 byte binary number (L) of chips per this module type
2 byte binary number (K) of cores per chip in this module type.
See the values in these sysfs files :
cat /sys/devices/hv_24x7/interface/{sockets,chipspersocket,coresperchip}
But I am afraid these are host level information and not guest/LPAR.
I believe there might be some sort of reasoning behind not having this on
PAPR, but I'll say in advance that the virtual machine should act as the
real hardware, as close as possible. This is the kind of hcall that could
be used in this situation.
I didn't find any LPAR level properties or hcalls in the PAPR document.
They need to be specified.
or
We
Re: Advice needed on SMP regression after cpu_core_mask change
On 3/17/21 2:00 PM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Patch 4bce545903fa ("powerpc/topology: Update topology_core_cpumask")
> introduced
> a regression in both upstream and RHEL downstream kernels [1]. The assumption
> made
> in the commit:
>
> "Further analysis shows that cpu_core_mask and cpu_cpu_mask for any CPU would
> be
> equal on Power"
>
> Doesn't seem to be true. After this commit, QEMU is now unable to set single
> NUMA
> node SMP topologies such as:
>
> -smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
>
> lscpu will give the following output in this case:
>
> # lscpu
> Architecture: ppc64le
> Byte Order: Little Endian
> CPU(s): 8
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
> Thread(s) per core: 2
> Core(s) per socket: 4
> Socket(s): 1
> NUMA node(s): 1
> Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
> Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> Virtualization type: para
> L1d cache: 32K
> L1i cache: 32K
> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-7
>
>
> This is happening because the macro cpu_cpu_mask(cpu) expands to
> cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(cpu)), which in turn expands to
> node_to_cpumask_map[node].
> node_to_cpumask_map is a NUMA array that maps CPUs to NUMA nodes (Aneesh is
> on CC to
> correct me if I'm wrong). We're now associating sockets to NUMA nodes
> directly.
>
> If I add a second NUMA node then I can get the intended smp topology:
>
> -smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
> -numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
> -numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
>
> # lscpu
> Architecture: ppc64le
> Byte Order: Little Endian
> CPU(s): 8
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
> Thread(s) per core: 2
> Core(s) per socket: 2
> Socket(s): 2
> NUMA node(s): 2
> Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
> Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> Virtualization type: para
> L1d cache: 32K
> L1i cache: 32K
> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
> NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
>
>
> However, if I try a single socket with multiple NUMA nodes topology, which is
> the case
> of Power10, e.g.:
>
>
> -smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=4,threads=2,sockets=1
> -numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
> -numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
>
>
> This is the result:
>
> # lscpu
> Architecture: ppc64le
> Byte Order: Little Endian
> CPU(s): 8
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
> Thread(s) per core: 2
> Core(s) per socket: 2
> Socket(s): 2
> NUMA node(s): 2
> Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
> Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
> Hypervisor vendor: KVM
> Virtualization type: para
> L1d cache: 32K
> L1i cache: 32K
> NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
> NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
>
>
> This confirms my suspicions that, at this moment, we're making sockets ==
> NUMA nodes.
Yes. I don't think we can do better on PAPR and the above examples
seem to confirm that the "sockets" definition is simply ignored.
> Cedric, the reason I'm CCing you is because this is related to ibm,chip-id.
> The commit
> after the one that caused the regression, 4ca234a9cbd7c3a65 ("powerpc/smp:
> Stop updating
> cpu_core_mask"), is erasing the code that calculated cpu_core_mask.
> cpu_core_mask, despite
> its shortcomings that caused its removal, was giving a precise SMP topology.
> And it was
> using physical_package_id/'ibm,chip-id' for that.
ibm,chip-id is a no-no on pSeries. I guess this is inherent to PAPR which
is hiding a lot of the underlying HW and topology. May be we are trying
to reconcile two orthogonal views of machine virtualization ...
> Checking in QEMU I can say that the ibm,chip-id calculation is the only place
> in the code
> that cares about cores per socket information. The kernel is now ignoring
> that, starting
> on 4bce545903fa, and now QEMU is unable to provide this info to the guest.
>
> If we're not going to use ibm,chip-id any longer, which seems sensible given
> that PAPR does
> not declare it, we need another way of letting the guest know how much cores
> per socket
> we want.
The RTAS call "ibm,get-system-parameter" with token "Processor Module
Information" returns that kind of information :
2 byte binary number (N) of module types followed by N module specifiers of
the form:
2 byte binary number (M) of sockets of this module type
2 byte binary number (L) of chips per this module type
2 byte binary number (K) of cores per chip in this module type.
See the values in these sysfs files :
cat /sys/devices/hv_24x7/interface/{sockets,chipspersocket,coresperchip}
But I am afraid these are host level information and not guest/LPAR.
I didn't find any LPAR level properties or hcalls in the PAPR document.
They need to be specified.
or
We can add extra properties like ibm,chip-id but making sure
Advice needed on SMP regression after cpu_core_mask change
Hello,
Patch 4bce545903fa ("powerpc/topology: Update topology_core_cpumask") introduced
a regression in both upstream and RHEL downstream kernels [1]. The assumption
made
in the commit:
"Further analysis shows that cpu_core_mask and cpu_cpu_mask for any CPU would be
equal on Power"
Doesn't seem to be true. After this commit, QEMU is now unable to set single
NUMA
node SMP topologies such as:
-smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
lscpu will give the following output in this case:
# lscpu
Architecture:ppc64le
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 4
Socket(s): 1
NUMA node(s):1
Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor: KVM
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-7
This is happening because the macro cpu_cpu_mask(cpu) expands to
cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(cpu)), which in turn expands to
node_to_cpumask_map[node].
node_to_cpumask_map is a NUMA array that maps CPUs to NUMA nodes (Aneesh is on
CC to
correct me if I'm wrong). We're now associating sockets to NUMA nodes directly.
If I add a second NUMA node then I can get the intended smp topology:
-smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=2,threads=2,sockets=2
-numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
-numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
# lscpu
Architecture:ppc64le
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 2
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s):2
Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor: KVM
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
However, if I try a single socket with multiple NUMA nodes topology, which is
the case
of Power10, e.g.:
-smp 8,maxcpus=8,cores=4,threads=2,sockets=1
-numa node,memdev=mem0,cpus=0-3,nodeid=0 \
-numa node,memdev=mem1,cpus=4-7,nodeid=1 \
This is the result:
# lscpu
Architecture:ppc64le
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-7
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 2
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s):2
Model: 2.2 (pvr 004e 1202)
Model name: POWER9 (architected), altivec supported
Hypervisor vendor: KVM
Virtualization type: para
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3
NUMA node1 CPU(s): 4-7
This confirms my suspicions that, at this moment, we're making sockets == NUMA
nodes.
Cedric, the reason I'm CCing you is because this is related to ibm,chip-id. The
commit
after the one that caused the regression, 4ca234a9cbd7c3a65 ("powerpc/smp: Stop
updating
cpu_core_mask"), is erasing the code that calculated cpu_core_mask.
cpu_core_mask, despite
its shortcomings that caused its removal, was giving a precise SMP topology.
And it was
using physical_package_id/'ibm,chip-id' for that.
Checking in QEMU I can say that the ibm,chip-id calculation is the only place
in the code
that cares about cores per socket information. The kernel is now ignoring that,
starting
on 4bce545903fa, and now QEMU is unable to provide this info to the guest.
If we're not going to use ibm,chip-id any longer, which seems sensible given
that PAPR does
not declare it, we need another way of letting the guest know how much cores
per socket
we want.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1934421
Thanks,
DHB
