From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2DBDC433EF for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:45:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:58944 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKiyN-0001G8-MB for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:45:35 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:56372) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKibm-0007Hm-IV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:22:16 -0500 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:57110) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nKibk-0000R0-3K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:22:13 -0500 Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E0DF2198B; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:22:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1645111330; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TQD/GnXMck7dJWuPdfaDGPyieYGu/jdNOVyI3wHE/1o=; b=Tqhg9iL640ME/QbkMbE2Rn19g4r5DE1ya347wveUBAruWgTtRt7gDk/UsYjqrN6fuXJ+y+ mh2QdSG1VN5/ZxH9TNoJWQVLEX+SBUVlA1+uwPkRj6rdzrWmpeMqQSSJduFyQyBQf1iuID QTQP4fspRVTiW5hXqulRXvoOdb7lQ3g= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1645111330; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TQD/GnXMck7dJWuPdfaDGPyieYGu/jdNOVyI3wHE/1o=; b=aZDS4AF8g+69jhWyn56hWZwcT85c45LINS6/UXedW1VowU3k3u6WZWJMUE0qqQCXROB3SO /j8+0+Y7NuHTFIDQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D55B613C1B; Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:22:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 4FXgMCFoDmKNWQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Thu, 17 Feb 2022 15:22:09 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] numa: check mem or memdev in numa configuration To: Igor Mammedov References: <20220216163613.22570-1-lizhang@suse.de> <20220217101024.7c723f10@redhat.com> <65f05997-dd2b-c30d-5c95-8e832f21afa0@suse.de> <20220217112539.43ddd55f@redhat.com> <20220217143335.17e8ff28@redhat.com> From: Li Zhang Message-ID: <81561d8b-0be9-a6d8-57a8-fb400e55aa7f@suse.de> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 16:22:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20220217143335.17e8ff28@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=195.135.220.28; envelope-from=lizhang@suse.de; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: eduardo@habkost.net, wangyanan55@huawei.com, f4bug@amsat.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 2/17/22 2:33 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 13:24:08 +0100 > Li Zhang wrote: > >> On 2/17/22 11:25 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:38:32 +0100 >>> Li Zhang wrote: >>> >>>> On 2/17/22 10:10 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:36:13 +0100 >>>>> Li Zhang wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If there is no mem or memdev in numa configuration, it always >>>>>> reports the error as the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> total memory for NUMA nodes (0x0) should equal RAM size (0x100000000) >>>>>> >>>>>> This error is confusing and the reason is that total memory of numa nodes >>>>>> is always 0 if there is no mem or memdev in numa configuration. >>>>>> So it's better to check mem or memdev in numa configuration. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Li Zhang >>>>>> --- >>>>>> hw/core/numa.c | 5 +++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/hw/core/numa.c b/hw/core/numa.c >>>>>> index 1aa05dcf42..11cbec51eb 100644 >>>>>> --- a/hw/core/numa.c >>>>>> +++ b/hw/core/numa.c >>>>>> @@ -132,6 +132,11 @@ static void parse_numa_node(MachineState *ms, NumaNodeOptions *node, >>>>>> >>>>>> have_memdevs = have_memdevs ? : node->has_memdev; >>>>>> have_mem = have_mem ? : node->has_mem; >>>>>> + if (!node->has_memdev && !node->has_mem) { >>>>>> + error_setg(errp, "numa configuration should use mem= or memdev= "); >>>>>> + return; >>>>>> + } >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't this breaks memory less numa nodes? >>>> >>>> Yes, you are right. It will break it if there more numa nodes >>>> than memory, and the numa nodes have no memory backends specified. >>>> >>>> Is it allowed for users to specify more numa nodes than memory? >>> yep, I think we support it at least for one of the targets >>> (but I don't remember which one(s)) >>> >> >> Is it okay if I put a warning here, instead of an error and return? >> It won't break the special case. I wonder if it is annoying to get >> the warning. > issuing warning in perfectly valid case (memory-less node) > doesn't look like a good thing to do. > > there is already a error message, > > "total memory for NUMA nodes (0x0) should equal RAM size (0x100000000)" > > I'd suggest to just fix this error message to be less confusing > instead of adding dubious warning elsewhere. > OK, thanks for your suggestion. >> >> Thanks >> Li >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd rather add/rephrase to original error message that memory >>>>> should be specified explicitly for desired numa nodes. >>>>> And I'd not mention 'mem=' since >>>>> docs/about/removed-features.rst:``-numa node,mem=...`` (removed in 5.1) >>>> >>>> Thanks for your suggestions, I will rephrase it. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> + >>>>>> if ((node->has_mem && have_memdevs) || (node->has_memdev && have_mem)) { >>>>>> error_setg(errp, "numa configuration should use either mem= or memdev=," >>>>>> "mixing both is not allowed"); >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >