On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 02:56:59PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c
> index 6fc2393..ab1661d 100644
> --- a/numa.c
> +++ b/numa.c
> @@ -294,9 +294,10 @@ static void validate_numa_cpus(void)
> g_free(seen_cpus);
> }
>
> -void parse_numa_opts(MachineClass *mc)
> +void parse_numa_opts(MachineState *ms)
> {
> int i;
> + MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);
>
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_NODES; i++) {
> numa_info[i].node_cpu = bitmap_new(max_cpus);
> @@ -378,14 +379,16 @@ void parse_numa_opts(MachineClass *mc)
Expanding diff context:
> /* Historically VCPUs were assigned in round-robin order to NUMA
> * nodes. However it causes issues with guest not handling it nice
> * in case where cores/threads from a multicore CPU appear on
> * different nodes. So allow boards to override default distribution
> * rule grouping VCPUs by socket so that VCPUs from the same socket
> * would be on the same node.
> */
The above comment looks obsolete, as we are removing the code inside
parse_numa_opts() that deals with grouping VCPUs by socket.
(Can be fixed by a follow-up patch, if necessary.)
> + if (!mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props) {
> + error_report("default CPUs to NUMA node mapping isn't
> supported");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> if (i == nb_numa_nodes) {
> for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
> - unsigned node_id = i % nb_numa_nodes;
> - if (mc->cpu_index_to_socket_id) {
> - node_id = mc->cpu_index_to_socket_id(i) % nb_numa_nodes;
> - }
> + CpuInstanceProperties props;
> + props = mc->cpu_index_to_instance_props(ms, i);
>
> - set_bit(i, numa_info[node_id].node_cpu);
> + set_bit(i, numa_info[props.node_id].node_cpu);
> }
> }
>
[...]
--
Eduardo
