[PATCH 0/2] numa: stop abusing numa_mem_supported

[PATCH 0/2] numa: stop abusing numa_mem_supported

[Igor Mammedov]

A fix  and cleanup for a mistakes that slipped by me in
  aa57020774 (numa: move numa global variable nb_numa_nodes into MachineState)


CC: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
CC: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>
CC: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>

Igor Mammedov (2):
  numa: remove not needed check
  numa: properly check if numa is supported

 hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
 hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
 hw/core/numa.c    | 7 +------
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

-- 
2.7.4

[PATCH 1/2] numa: remove not needed check

[Igor Mammedov]

Currently parse_numa_node() is always called from already numa
enabled context.
Drop unnecessary check if numa is supported.

Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
---
 hw/core/numa.c | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/core/numa.c b/hw/core/numa.c
index e3332a9..19f082d 100644
--- a/hw/core/numa.c
+++ b/hw/core/numa.c
@@ -83,10 +83,6 @@ static void parse_numa_node(MachineState *ms, NumaNodeOptions *node,
         return;
     }
 
-    if (!mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id) {
-        error_setg(errp, "NUMA is not supported by this machine-type");
-        return;
-    }
     for (cpus = node->cpus; cpus; cpus = cpus->next) {
         CpuInstanceProperties props;
         if (cpus->value >= max_cpus) {
@@ -178,9 +174,8 @@ void parse_numa_distance(MachineState *ms, NumaDistOptions *dist, Error **errp)
 void set_numa_options(MachineState *ms, NumaOptions *object, Error **errp)
 {
     Error *err = NULL;
-    MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);
 
-    if (!mc->numa_mem_supported) {
+    if (!ms->numa_state) {
         error_setg(errp, "NUMA is not supported by this machine-type");
         goto end;
     }
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH 1/2] numa: remove not needed check

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 01:48:55PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Currently parse_numa_node() is always called from already numa
> enabled context.
> Drop unnecessary check if numa is supported.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>

I'm queueing and I plan to send a pull request before the holiday
break.

-- 
Eduardo

[PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

[Igor Mammedov]

Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported
to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change
set it to true for sbsa-ref board.

Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field
is set to true for them.

But the field is not intended for checking if NUMA is supported and
will be flipped to false within this release for new machine types.

Fix it:
 - by using previously used condition
      !mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id
   the first time and then use MachineState::numa_state down the road
   to check if NUMA is supported
 - dropping stray sbsa-ref chunk

Fixes: aa57020774b690a22be72453b8e91c9b5a68c516
Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
---
CC: Radoslaw Biernacki <radoslaw.biernacki@linaro.org>
CC: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
CC: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
CC: qemu-arm@nongnu.org
CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org


 hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
 hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
index 27046cc..c6261d4 100644
--- a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
+++ b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
@@ -791,7 +791,6 @@ static void sbsa_ref_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
     mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids = sbsa_ref_possible_cpu_arch_ids;
     mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props = sbsa_ref_cpu_index_to_props;
     mc->get_default_cpu_node_id = sbsa_ref_get_default_cpu_node_id;
-    mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
 }
 
 static const TypeInfo sbsa_ref_info = {
diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
index 1689ad3..aa63231 100644
--- a/hw/core/machine.c
+++ b/hw/core/machine.c
@@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ static void machine_initfn(Object *obj)
                                         NULL);
     }
 
-    if (mc->numa_mem_supported) {
+    if (mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props && mc->get_default_cpu_node_id) {
         ms->numa_state = g_new0(NumaState, 1);
     }
 
@@ -1102,7 +1102,7 @@ void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine)
 {
     MachineClass *machine_class = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(machine);
 
-    if (machine_class->numa_mem_supported) {
+    if (machine->numa_state) {
         numa_complete_configuration(machine);
         if (machine->numa_state->num_nodes) {
             machine_numa_finish_cpu_init(machine);
-- 
2.7.4

[PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

[Igor Mammedov]

Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported
to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change
set it to true for sbsa-ref board.

Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field
is set to true for them.

But the field is not intended for checking if NUMA is supported and
will be flipped to false within this release for new machine types.

Fix it:
 - by using previously used condition
      !mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id
   the first time and then use MachineState::numa_state down the road
   to check if NUMA is supported
 - dropping stray sbsa-ref chunk

Fixes: aa57020774b690a22be72453b8e91c9b5a68c516
Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
---
CC: Radoslaw Biernacki <radoslaw.biernacki@linaro.org>
CC: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
CC: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
CC: qemu-arm@nongnu.org
CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org


 hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
 hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
index 27046cc..c6261d4 100644
--- a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
+++ b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
@@ -791,7 +791,6 @@ static void sbsa_ref_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
     mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids = sbsa_ref_possible_cpu_arch_ids;
     mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props = sbsa_ref_cpu_index_to_props;
     mc->get_default_cpu_node_id = sbsa_ref_get_default_cpu_node_id;
-    mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
 }
 
 static const TypeInfo sbsa_ref_info = {
diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
index 1689ad3..aa63231 100644
--- a/hw/core/machine.c
+++ b/hw/core/machine.c
@@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ static void machine_initfn(Object *obj)
                                         NULL);
     }
 
-    if (mc->numa_mem_supported) {
+    if (mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props && mc->get_default_cpu_node_id) {
         ms->numa_state = g_new0(NumaState, 1);
     }
 
@@ -1102,7 +1102,7 @@ void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine)
 {
     MachineClass *machine_class = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(machine);
 
-    if (machine_class->numa_mem_supported) {
+    if (machine->numa_state) {
         numa_complete_configuration(machine);
         if (machine->numa_state->num_nodes) {
             machine_numa_finish_cpu_init(machine);
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

[Tao Xu]

On 12/12/2019 8:48 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported
> to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change
> set it to true for sbsa-ref board.
> 
> Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field
> is set to true for them.
> 
> But the field is not intended for checking if NUMA is supported and
> will be flipped to false within this release for new machine types.
> 
> Fix it:
>   - by using previously used condition
>        !mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id
>     the first time and then use MachineState::numa_state down the road
>     to check if NUMA is supported
>   - dropping stray sbsa-ref chunk
> 
> Fixes: aa57020774b690a22be72453b8e91c9b5a68c516
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> ---
> CC: Radoslaw Biernacki <radoslaw.biernacki@linaro.org>
> CC: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> CC: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> CC: qemu-arm@nongnu.org
> CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
> 
> 
>   hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
>   hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> index 27046cc..c6261d4 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> @@ -791,7 +791,6 @@ static void sbsa_ref_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>       mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids = sbsa_ref_possible_cpu_arch_ids;
>       mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props = sbsa_ref_cpu_index_to_props;
>       mc->get_default_cpu_node_id = sbsa_ref_get_default_cpu_node_id;
> -    mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
>   }
>   
>   static const TypeInfo sbsa_ref_info = {
> diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
> index 1689ad3..aa63231 100644
> --- a/hw/core/machine.c
> +++ b/hw/core/machine.c
> @@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ static void machine_initfn(Object *obj)
>                                           NULL);
>       }
>   
> -    if (mc->numa_mem_supported) {
> +    if (mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props && mc->get_default_cpu_node_id) {
>           ms->numa_state = g_new0(NumaState, 1);
>       }

I am wondering if @numa_mem_supported is unused here, it is unused for 
QEMU, because the only usage of @numa_mem_supported is to initialize 
@numa_state. Or there is other usage? So should it be removed from 
struct MachineClass?

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

[Tao Xu]

On 12/12/2019 8:48 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported
> to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change
> set it to true for sbsa-ref board.
> 
> Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field
> is set to true for them.
> 
> But the field is not intended for checking if NUMA is supported and
> will be flipped to false within this release for new machine types.
> 
> Fix it:
>   - by using previously used condition
>        !mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id
>     the first time and then use MachineState::numa_state down the road
>     to check if NUMA is supported
>   - dropping stray sbsa-ref chunk
> 
> Fixes: aa57020774b690a22be72453b8e91c9b5a68c516
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> ---
> CC: Radoslaw Biernacki <radoslaw.biernacki@linaro.org>
> CC: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> CC: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> CC: qemu-arm@nongnu.org
> CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
> 
> 
>   hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
>   hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> index 27046cc..c6261d4 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> @@ -791,7 +791,6 @@ static void sbsa_ref_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>       mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids = sbsa_ref_possible_cpu_arch_ids;
>       mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props = sbsa_ref_cpu_index_to_props;
>       mc->get_default_cpu_node_id = sbsa_ref_get_default_cpu_node_id;
> -    mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
>   }
>   
>   static const TypeInfo sbsa_ref_info = {
> diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
> index 1689ad3..aa63231 100644
> --- a/hw/core/machine.c
> +++ b/hw/core/machine.c
> @@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ static void machine_initfn(Object *obj)
>                                           NULL);
>       }
>   
> -    if (mc->numa_mem_supported) {
> +    if (mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props && mc->get_default_cpu_node_id) {
>           ms->numa_state = g_new0(NumaState, 1);
>       }

I am wondering if @numa_mem_supported is unused here, it is unused for 
QEMU, because the only usage of @numa_mem_supported is to initialize 
@numa_state. Or there is other usage? So should it be removed from 
struct MachineClass?

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

[Igor Mammedov]

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:33:10 +0800
Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:

> On 12/12/2019 8:48 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported
> > to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change
> > set it to true for sbsa-ref board.
> > 
> > Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field
> > is set to true for them.
> > 
> > But the field is not intended for checking if NUMA is supported and
> > will be flipped to false within this release for new machine types.
> > 
> > Fix it:
> >   - by using previously used condition
> >        !mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id
> >     the first time and then use MachineState::numa_state down the road
> >     to check if NUMA is supported
> >   - dropping stray sbsa-ref chunk
> > 
> > Fixes: aa57020774b690a22be72453b8e91c9b5a68c516
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > CC: Radoslaw Biernacki <radoslaw.biernacki@linaro.org>
> > CC: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> > CC: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> > CC: qemu-arm@nongnu.org
> > CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
> > 
> > 
> >   hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
> >   hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
> >   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> > index 27046cc..c6261d4 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> > @@ -791,7 +791,6 @@ static void sbsa_ref_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
> >       mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids = sbsa_ref_possible_cpu_arch_ids;
> >       mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props = sbsa_ref_cpu_index_to_props;
> >       mc->get_default_cpu_node_id = sbsa_ref_get_default_cpu_node_id;
> > -    mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
> >   }
> >   
> >   static const TypeInfo sbsa_ref_info = {
> > diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
> > index 1689ad3..aa63231 100644
> > --- a/hw/core/machine.c
> > +++ b/hw/core/machine.c
> > @@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ static void machine_initfn(Object *obj)
> >                                           NULL);
> >       }
> >   
> > -    if (mc->numa_mem_supported) {
> > +    if (mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props && mc->get_default_cpu_node_id) {
> >           ms->numa_state = g_new0(NumaState, 1);
> >       }  
> 
> I am wondering if @numa_mem_supported is unused here, it is unused for 
> QEMU, because the only usage of @numa_mem_supported is to initialize 
> @numa_state. Or there is other usage? So should it be removed from 
> struct MachineClass?
You are wrong, it's not intended for numa_state initialization,
read doc comment for it in include/hw/boards.h
(for full story look at commit cd5ff8333a3)

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

[Igor Mammedov]

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:33:10 +0800
Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:

> On 12/12/2019 8:48 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported
> > to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change
> > set it to true for sbsa-ref board.
> > 
> > Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field
> > is set to true for them.
> > 
> > But the field is not intended for checking if NUMA is supported and
> > will be flipped to false within this release for new machine types.
> > 
> > Fix it:
> >   - by using previously used condition
> >        !mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id
> >     the first time and then use MachineState::numa_state down the road
> >     to check if NUMA is supported
> >   - dropping stray sbsa-ref chunk
> > 
> > Fixes: aa57020774b690a22be72453b8e91c9b5a68c516
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > CC: Radoslaw Biernacki <radoslaw.biernacki@linaro.org>
> > CC: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> > CC: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> > CC: qemu-arm@nongnu.org
> > CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
> > 
> > 
> >   hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
> >   hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
> >   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> > index 27046cc..c6261d4 100644
> > --- a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> > +++ b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
> > @@ -791,7 +791,6 @@ static void sbsa_ref_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
> >       mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids = sbsa_ref_possible_cpu_arch_ids;
> >       mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props = sbsa_ref_cpu_index_to_props;
> >       mc->get_default_cpu_node_id = sbsa_ref_get_default_cpu_node_id;
> > -    mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
> >   }
> >   
> >   static const TypeInfo sbsa_ref_info = {
> > diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
> > index 1689ad3..aa63231 100644
> > --- a/hw/core/machine.c
> > +++ b/hw/core/machine.c
> > @@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ static void machine_initfn(Object *obj)
> >                                           NULL);
> >       }
> >   
> > -    if (mc->numa_mem_supported) {
> > +    if (mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props && mc->get_default_cpu_node_id) {
> >           ms->numa_state = g_new0(NumaState, 1);
> >       }  
> 
> I am wondering if @numa_mem_supported is unused here, it is unused for 
> QEMU, because the only usage of @numa_mem_supported is to initialize 
> @numa_state. Or there is other usage? So should it be removed from 
> struct MachineClass?
You are wrong, it's not intended for numa_state initialization,
read doc comment for it in include/hw/boards.h
(for full story look at commit cd5ff8333a3)

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

[Tao Xu]

On 12/13/2019 5:12 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:33:10 +0800
> Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/12/2019 8:48 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported
>>> to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change
>>> set it to true for sbsa-ref board.
>>>
>>> Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field
>>> is set to true for them.
>>>
>>> But the field is not intended for checking if NUMA is supported and
>>> will be flipped to false within this release for new machine types.
>>>
>>> Fix it:
>>>    - by using previously used condition
>>>         !mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id
>>>      the first time and then use MachineState::numa_state down the road
>>>      to check if NUMA is supported
>>>    - dropping stray sbsa-ref chunk
>>>
>>> Fixes: aa57020774b690a22be72453b8e91c9b5a68c516
>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> CC: Radoslaw Biernacki <radoslaw.biernacki@linaro.org>
>>> CC: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
>>> CC: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
>>> CC: qemu-arm@nongnu.org
>>> CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
>>>
>>>
>>>    hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
>>>    hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
>>>    2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
>>> index 27046cc..c6261d4 100644
>>> --- a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
>>> +++ b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
>>> @@ -791,7 +791,6 @@ static void sbsa_ref_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>>>        mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids = sbsa_ref_possible_cpu_arch_ids;
>>>        mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props = sbsa_ref_cpu_index_to_props;
>>>        mc->get_default_cpu_node_id = sbsa_ref_get_default_cpu_node_id;
>>> -    mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
>>>    }
>>>    
>>>    static const TypeInfo sbsa_ref_info = {
>>> diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
>>> index 1689ad3..aa63231 100644
>>> --- a/hw/core/machine.c
>>> +++ b/hw/core/machine.c
>>> @@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ static void machine_initfn(Object *obj)
>>>                                            NULL);
>>>        }
>>>    
>>> -    if (mc->numa_mem_supported) {
>>> +    if (mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props && mc->get_default_cpu_node_id) {
>>>            ms->numa_state = g_new0(NumaState, 1);
>>>        }
>>
>> I am wondering if @numa_mem_supported is unused here, it is unused for
>> QEMU, because the only usage of @numa_mem_supported is to initialize
>> @numa_state. Or there is other usage? So should it be removed from
>> struct MachineClass?
> You are wrong, it's not intended for numa_state initialization,
> read doc comment for it in include/hw/boards.h
> (for full story look at commit cd5ff8333a3)
> 
I understand.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

[Tao Xu]

On 12/13/2019 5:12 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:33:10 +0800
> Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/12/2019 8:48 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported
>>> to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change
>>> set it to true for sbsa-ref board.
>>>
>>> Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field
>>> is set to true for them.
>>>
>>> But the field is not intended for checking if NUMA is supported and
>>> will be flipped to false within this release for new machine types.
>>>
>>> Fix it:
>>>    - by using previously used condition
>>>         !mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id
>>>      the first time and then use MachineState::numa_state down the road
>>>      to check if NUMA is supported
>>>    - dropping stray sbsa-ref chunk
>>>
>>> Fixes: aa57020774b690a22be72453b8e91c9b5a68c516
>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> CC: Radoslaw Biernacki <radoslaw.biernacki@linaro.org>
>>> CC: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
>>> CC: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
>>> CC: qemu-arm@nongnu.org
>>> CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org
>>>
>>>
>>>    hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
>>>    hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
>>>    2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
>>> index 27046cc..c6261d4 100644
>>> --- a/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
>>> +++ b/hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c
>>> @@ -791,7 +791,6 @@ static void sbsa_ref_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>>>        mc->possible_cpu_arch_ids = sbsa_ref_possible_cpu_arch_ids;
>>>        mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props = sbsa_ref_cpu_index_to_props;
>>>        mc->get_default_cpu_node_id = sbsa_ref_get_default_cpu_node_id;
>>> -    mc->numa_mem_supported = true;
>>>    }
>>>    
>>>    static const TypeInfo sbsa_ref_info = {
>>> diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
>>> index 1689ad3..aa63231 100644
>>> --- a/hw/core/machine.c
>>> +++ b/hw/core/machine.c
>>> @@ -958,7 +958,7 @@ static void machine_initfn(Object *obj)
>>>                                            NULL);
>>>        }
>>>    
>>> -    if (mc->numa_mem_supported) {
>>> +    if (mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props && mc->get_default_cpu_node_id) {
>>>            ms->numa_state = g_new0(NumaState, 1);
>>>        }
>>
>> I am wondering if @numa_mem_supported is unused here, it is unused for
>> QEMU, because the only usage of @numa_mem_supported is to initialize
>> @numa_state. Or there is other usage? So should it be removed from
>> struct MachineClass?
> You are wrong, it's not intended for numa_state initialization,
> read doc comment for it in include/hw/boards.h
> (for full story look at commit cd5ff8333a3)
> 
I understand.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 01:48:56PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported
> to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change
> set it to true for sbsa-ref board.
> 
> Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field
> is set to true for them.
> 
> But the field is not intended for checking if NUMA is supported and
> will be flipped to false within this release for new machine types.
> 
> Fix it:
>  - by using previously used condition
>       !mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props || !mc->get_default_cpu_node_id
>    the first time and then use MachineState::numa_state down the road
>    to check if NUMA is supported
>  - dropping stray sbsa-ref chunk
> 
> Fixes: aa57020774b690a22be72453b8e91c9b5a68c516
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>

I'm queueing this and plan to submit a pull request soon.

-- 
Eduardo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] numa: stop abusing numa_mem_supported

[Igor Mammedov]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:48:54 +0100
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:

> A fix  and cleanup for a mistakes that slipped by me in
>   aa57020774 (numa: move numa global variable nb_numa_nodes into MachineState)

ping,

could someone pick it up please?

> 
> 
> CC: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> CC: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>
> CC: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
> 
> Igor Mammedov (2):
>   numa: remove not needed check
>   numa: properly check if numa is supported
> 
>  hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
>  hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
>  hw/core/numa.c    | 7 +------
>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] numa: stop abusing numa_mem_supported

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 02:28:51PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:48:54 +0100
> Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > A fix  and cleanup for a mistakes that slipped by me in
> >   aa57020774 (numa: move numa global variable nb_numa_nodes into MachineState)
> 
> ping,
> 
> could someone pick it up please?

Looks more like Eduardo's thing.

> > 
> > 
> > CC: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > CC: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>
> > CC: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
> > 
> > Igor Mammedov (2):
> >   numa: remove not needed check
> >   numa: properly check if numa is supported
> > 
> >  hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
> >  hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
> >  hw/core/numa.c    | 7 +------
> >  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] numa: stop abusing numa_mem_supported

[Igor Mammedov]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:30:34 -0500
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 02:28:51PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:48:54 +0100
> > Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > A fix  and cleanup for a mistakes that slipped by me in
> > >   aa57020774 (numa: move numa global variable nb_numa_nodes into MachineState)  
> > 
> > ping,
> > 
> > could someone pick it up please?  
> 
> Looks more like Eduardo's thing.

Yep if he is still available,
but I wasn't sure with coming winter break.

In addition, this patch will be prerequisite for disabling
deprecated '-numa node,mem'
hence broadcast ping to make sure it won't get lost.

> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > CC: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > > CC: Marcel Apfelbaum <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>
> > > CC: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Igor Mammedov (2):
> > >   numa: remove not needed check
> > >   numa: properly check if numa is supported
> > > 
> > >  hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c | 1 -
> > >  hw/core/machine.c | 4 ++--
> > >  hw/core/numa.c    | 7 +------
> > >  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >   
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/2] numa: stop abusing numa_mem_supported

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 19/12/19 14:42, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:30:34 -0500
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 02:28:51PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:48:54 +0100
>>> Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> A fix  and cleanup for a mistakes that slipped by me in
>>>>   aa57020774 (numa: move numa global variable nb_numa_nodes into MachineState)  
>>>
>>> ping,
>>>
>>> could someone pick it up please?  
>>
>> Looks more like Eduardo's thing.
> 
> Yep if he is still available,
> but I wasn't sure with coming winter break.
> 
> In addition, this patch will be prerequisite for disabling
> deprecated '-numa node,mem'
> hence broadcast ping to make sure it won't get lost.

I'll take care of it (after new year).

Paolo

Re: [PATCH 0/2] numa: stop abusing numa_mem_supported

[Igor Mammedov]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:14:58 +0100
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 19/12/19 14:42, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:30:34 -0500
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 02:28:51PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>> On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:48:54 +0100
> >>> Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> A fix  and cleanup for a mistakes that slipped by me in
> >>>>   aa57020774 (numa: move numa global variable nb_numa_nodes into MachineState)    
> >>>
> >>> ping,
> >>>
> >>> could someone pick it up please?    
> >>
> >> Looks more like Eduardo's thing.  
> > 
> > Yep if he is still available,
> > but I wasn't sure with coming winter break.
> > 
> > In addition, this patch will be prerequisite for disabling
> > deprecated '-numa node,mem'
> > hence broadcast ping to make sure it won't get lost.  
> 
> I'll take care of it (after new year).

It' looks like Eduardo already picked it up.
(meanwhile I'm preparing to post mem-path patch bomb with these included)


Though it would be nice is you could take a look at another series
  [PATCH for-5.0 v2 0/9] q35: CPU hotplug with secure boot, part 1+2
especially 2/9 patch

> 
> Paolo
> 
>