qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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;
> +}



  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).