From: Jonathan Cameron via <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
To: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>
Cc: "Daniel P . Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
"Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
"Eduardo Habkost" <eduardo@habkost.net>,
"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>,
"Yanan Wang" <wangyanan55@huawei.com>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
"Sergio Lopez" <slp@redhat.com>,
"Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
"Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
"Anthony PERARD" <anthony@xenproject.org>,
"Paul Durrant" <paul@xen.org>,
"Edgar E . Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>,
"Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com>,
"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>,
"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
"Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org,
"Zhenyu Wang" <zhenyu.z.wang@intel.com>,
"Dapeng Mi" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>,
"Yongwei Ma" <yongwei.ma@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 05/12] hw/core/machine: Introduce custom CPU topology with max limitations
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 11:16:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241008111651.000025ab@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240919061128.769139-6-zhao1.liu@intel.com>
On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:11:21 +0800
Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com> wrote:
> Custom topology allows user to create CPU topology totally via -device
> from CLI.
>
> Once custom topology is enabled, machine will stop the default CPU
> creation and expect user's CPU topology tree built from CLI.
>
> With custom topology, any CPU topology, whether symmetric or hybrid
> (aka, heterogeneous), can be created naturally.
>
> However, custom topology also needs to be restricted because
> possible_cpus[] requires some preliminary topology information for
> initialization, which is the max limitation (the new max parameters in
> -smp). Custom topology will be subject to this max limitation.
>
> Max limitations are necessary because creating custom topology before
> initializing possible_cpus[] would compromise future hotplug scalability.
>
> Max limitations are placed in -smp, even though custom topology can be
> defined as hybrid. From an implementation perspective, any hybrid
> topology can be considered a subset of a complete SMP structure.
> Therefore, semantically, using max limitations to constrain hybrid
> topology is consistent.
>
> Introduce custom CPU topology related properties in MachineClass. At the
> same time, add and parse max parameters from -smp, and store the max
> limitations in CPUSlot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@intel.com>
A few code style comments inline.
J
> diff --git a/hw/cpu/cpu-slot.c b/hw/cpu/cpu-slot.c
> index 1cc3b32ed675..2d16a2729501 100644
> --- a/hw/cpu/cpu-slot.c
> +++ b/hw/cpu/cpu-slot.c
> +
> +bool machine_parse_custom_topo_config(MachineState *ms,
> + const SMPConfiguration *config,
> + Error **errp)
> +{
> + MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);
> + CPUSlot *slot = ms->topo;
> + bool is_valid;
> + int maxcpus;
> +
> + if (!slot) {
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + is_valid = config->has_maxsockets && config->maxsockets;
> + if (mc->smp_props.custom_topo_supported) {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_SOCKET].max_limit =
> + is_valid ? config->maxsockets : ms->smp.sockets;
> + } else if (is_valid) {
> + error_setg(errp, "maxsockets > 0 not supported "
> + "by this machine's CPU topology");
> + return false;
> + } else {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_SOCKET].max_limit =
> + ms->smp.sockets;
> + }
Having the error condition in the middle is rather confusing to
read to my eyes. Playing with equivalents I wonder what works best..
if (!is_valid) {
slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_SOCKET].max_limit =
ms->smp.sockets;
} else if (mc->smp_props.custom_topo_supported) {
slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_SOCKET].max_limit =
config->max_sockets;
} else {
error_setg...
return false;
}
or take the bad case out first. Maybe this is a little obscure
though (assuming I even got it right) as it relies on the fact
that is_valid must be false for the legacy path.
if (!mc->smp_props.custom_topo_supported && is_valid) {
error_setg();
return false;
}
slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_SOCKET].max_limit =
is_valid ? config->maxsockets : ms->smp.sockets;
Similar for other cases.
> +
> + is_valid = config->has_maxdies && config->maxdies;
> + if (mc->smp_props.custom_topo_supported &&
> + mc->smp_props.dies_supported) {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_DIE].max_limit =
> + is_valid ? config->maxdies : ms->smp.dies;
> + } else if (is_valid) {
> + error_setg(errp, "maxdies > 0 not supported "
> + "by this machine's CPU topology");
> + return false;
> + } else {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_DIE].max_limit =
> + ms->smp.dies;
> + }
> +
> + is_valid = config->has_maxmodules && config->maxmodules;
> + if (mc->smp_props.custom_topo_supported &&
> + mc->smp_props.modules_supported) {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_MODULE].max_limit =
> + is_valid ? config->maxmodules : ms->smp.modules;
> + } else if (is_valid) {
> + error_setg(errp, "maxmodules > 0 not supported "
> + "by this machine's CPU topology");
> + return false;
> + } else {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_MODULE].max_limit =
> + ms->smp.modules;
> + }
> +
> + is_valid = config->has_maxcores && config->maxcores;
> + if (mc->smp_props.custom_topo_supported) {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_CORE].max_limit =
> + is_valid ? config->maxcores : ms->smp.cores;
> + } else if (is_valid) {
> + error_setg(errp, "maxcores > 0 not supported "
> + "by this machine's CPU topology");
> + return false;
> + } else {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_CORE].max_limit =
> + ms->smp.cores;
> + }
> +
> + is_valid = config->has_maxthreads && config->maxthreads;
> + if (mc->smp_props.custom_topo_supported) {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_THREAD].max_limit =
> + is_valid ? config->maxthreads : ms->smp.threads;
> + } else if (is_valid) {
> + error_setg(errp, "maxthreads > 0 not supported "
> + "by this machine's CPU topology");
> + return false;
> + } else {
> + slot->stat.entries[CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL_THREAD].max_limit =
> + ms->smp.threads;
> + }
> +
> + maxcpus = 1;
> + /* Initizlize max_limit to 1, as members of CpuTopology. */
> + for (int i = 0; i < CPU_TOPOLOGY_LEVEL__MAX; i++) {
> + maxcpus *= slot->stat.entries[i].max_limit;
> + }
> +
> + if (!config->has_maxcpus) {
> + ms->smp.max_cpus = maxcpus;
Maybe early return here to get rid of need for the else?
> + } else {
> + if (maxcpus != ms->smp.max_cpus) {
Unless this is going to get more complex later, else if probably appropriate here
(if you don't drop the else above.
> + error_setg(errp, "maxcpus (%d) should be equal to "
> + "the product of the remaining max parameters (%d)",
> + ms->smp.max_cpus, maxcpus);
> + return false;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-08 10:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-19 6:11 [RFC v2 00/12] Introduce Hybrid CPU Topology via Custom Topology Tree Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 01/12] qdev: Allow qdev_device_add() to add specific category device Zhao Liu
2024-10-08 9:14 ` Jonathan Cameron via
2024-10-09 6:09 ` Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 02/12] qdev: Introduce new device category to cover basic topology device Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 03/12] system/vl: Create CPU topology devices from CLI early Zhao Liu
2024-10-08 9:50 ` Jonathan Cameron via
2024-10-09 6:31 ` Zhao Liu
2024-10-08 9:55 ` Jonathan Cameron via
2024-10-09 6:11 ` Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 04/12] hw/core/machine: Split machine initialization around qemu_add_cli_devices_early() Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 05/12] hw/core/machine: Introduce custom CPU topology with max limitations Zhao Liu
2024-10-08 10:16 ` Jonathan Cameron via [this message]
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 06/12] hw/cpu: Constrain CPU topology tree with max_limit Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 07/12] hw/core: Re-implement topology helpers to honor max limitations Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 08/12] hw/i386: Use get_max_topo_by_level() to get topology information Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 09/12] i386: Introduce x86 CPU core abstractions Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 10/12] i386/cpu: Support Intel hybrid CPUID Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 11/12] i386/machine: Split machine initialization after CPU creation into post_init() Zhao Liu
2024-09-19 6:11 ` [RFC v2 12/12] i386: Support custom topology for microvm, pc-i440fx and pc-q35 Zhao Liu
2024-10-08 10:30 ` [RFC v2 00/12] Introduce Hybrid CPU Topology via Custom Topology Tree Jonathan Cameron via
2024-10-09 6:01 ` Zhao Liu
2024-10-09 6:51 ` Zhao Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20241008111651.000025ab@Huawei.com \
--to=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=anthony@xenproject.org \
--cc=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eblake@redhat.com \
--cc=edgar.iglesias@gmail.com \
--cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@xen.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-arm@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
--cc=slp@redhat.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=wangyanan55@huawei.com \
--cc=yongwei.ma@intel.com \
--cc=zhao1.liu@intel.com \
--cc=zhenyu.z.wang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).