On 10/17/17 17:07, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:27:02AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 17:36:36 +0100 >> "Daniel P. Berrange" <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 06:22:50PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>> Series allows to configure NUMA mapping at runtime using QMP/HMP >>>> interface. For that to happen it introduces a new '-paused' CLI option >>>> which allows to pause QEMU before machine_init() is run and >>>> adds new set-numa-node HMP/QMP commands which in conjuction with >>>> info hotpluggable-cpus/query-hotpluggable-cpus allow to configure >>>> NUMA mapping for cpus. >>> >>> What's the problem we're seeking solve here compared to what we currently >>> do for NUMA configuration ? >> From RHBZ1382425 >> " >> Current -numa CLI interface is quite limited in terms that allow map >> CPUs to NUMA nodes as it requires to provide cpu_index values which >> are non obvious and depend on machine/arch. As result libvirt has to >> assume/re-implement cpu_index allocation logic to provide valid >> values for -numa cpus=... QEMU CLI option. > > In broad terms, this problem applies to every device / object libvirt > asks QEMU to create. For everything else libvirt is able to assign a > "id" string, which is can then use to identify the thing later. The > CPU stuff is different because libvirt isn't able to provide 'id' > strings for each CPU - QEMU generates a psuedo-id internally which > libvirt has to infer.
Oh. This is the critical bit I've been missing. Sorry about the noise I've made! Thanks! Laszlo > The latter is the same problem we had with > devices before '-device' was introduced allowing 'id' naming. > > IMHO we should take the same approach with CPUs and start modelling > the individual CPUs as something we can explicitly create with -object > or -device. That way libvirt can assign names and does not have to > care about CPU index values, and it all works just the same way as > any other devices / object we create > > ie instead of: > > -smp 8,sockets=4,cores=2,threads=1 > -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-3 > -numa node,nodeid=1,cpus=4-7 > > we could do: > > -object numa-node,id=numa0 > -object numa-node,id=numa1 > -object cpu,id=cpu0,node=numa0,socket=0,core=0,thread=0 > -object cpu,id=cpu1,node=numa0,socket=0,core=1,thread=0 > -object cpu,id=cpu2,node=numa0,socket=1,core=0,thread=0 > -object cpu,id=cpu3,node=numa0,socket=1,core=1,thread=0 > -object cpu,id=cpu4,node=numa1,socket=2,core=0,thread=0 > -object cpu,id=cpu5,node=numa1,socket=2,core=1,thread=0 > -object cpu,id=cpu6,node=numa1,socket=3,core=0,thread=0 > -object cpu,id=cpu7,node=numa1,socket=3,core=1,thread=0 > > (perhaps -device instead of -object above, but that's a minor detail) > > Regards, > Daniel >
