On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 06:16:29PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 06/16/2014 05:53 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > c4177479 "spapr: make sure RMA is in first mode of first memory node" > > introduced regression which prevents from running guests with memoryless > > NUMA node#0 which may happen on real POWER8 boxes and which would make > > sense to debug in QEMU. > > > > This patchset aim is to fix that and also fix various code problems in > > memory nodes generation. > > > > These 2 patches could be merged (the resulting patch looks rather ugly): > > spapr: Use DT memory node rendering helper for other nodes > > spapr: Move DT memory node rendering to a helper > > > > Please comment. Thanks! > > > > Sure I forgot to add an example of what I am trying to run without errors > and warnings: > > /home/aik/qemu-system-ppc64 \ > -enable-kvm \ > -machine pseries \ > -nographic \ > -vga none \ > -drive id=id0,if=none,file=virtimg/fc20_24GB.qcow2,format=qcow2 \ > -device scsi-disk,id=id1,drive=id0 \ > -m 2080 \ > -smp 8 \ > -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-7,memory=0 \ > -numa node,nodeid=2,cpus=0-3,mem=1040 \ > -numa node,nodeid=4,cpus=4-7,mem=1040
(Note: I will ignore the "cpus" argument for the discussion below.) I understand now that the non-contiguous node IDs are guest-visible. But I still would like to understand the motivations for your use case, to understand which solution makes more sense. If you really want 5 nodes, you just need to write this: -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-7,memory=0 \ -numa node,nodeid=1 \ -numa node,nodeid=2,cpus=0-3,mem=1040 \ -numa node,nodeid=3 \ -numa node,nodeid=4,cpus=4-7,mem=1040 If you just want 3 nodes, you can just write this: -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-7,memory=0 \ -numa node,nodeid=1,cpus=0-3,mem=1040 \ -numa node,nodeid=4,cpus=4-7,mem=1040 But you seem to claim you need 3 nodes with non-contiguous IDs. In that case, which exactly is the guest-visible difference you expect to get between: -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-7,memory=0 \ -numa node,nodeid=1 \ -numa node,nodeid=2,cpus=0-3,mem=1040 \ -numa node,nodeid=3 \ -numa node,nodeid=4,cpus=4-7,mem=1040 and -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-7,memory=0 \ -numa node,nodeid=2,cpus=0-3,mem=1040 \ -numa node,nodeid=4,cpus=4-7,mem=1040 ? Because your patch is making both be exactly the same, and I guess you don't want that (otherwise you could simply use the 5-node command-line above and we wouldn't need patch 7/7). -- Eduardo
