Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/7] spapr: Refactor spapr_populate_memory()

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On 24.06.2014 [16:07:41 +1000], Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> On 06/24/2014 03:40 AM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 21.06.2014 [13:06:53 +1000], Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >> On 06/21/2014 08:55 AM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >>> On 16.06.2014 [17:53:49 +1000], Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> >>>> Current QEMU does not support memoryless NUMA nodes.
> >>>> This prepares SPAPR for that.
> >>>>
> >>>> This moves 2 calls of spapr_populate_memory_node() into
> >>>> the existing loop which handles nodes other than than
> >>>> the first one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  hw/ppc/spapr.c | 31 +++++++++++--------------------
> >>>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> >>>> index cb3a10a..666b676 100644
> >>>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> >>>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> >>>> @@ -689,28 +689,13 @@ static void spapr_populate_memory_node(void *fdt, 
> >>>> int nodeid, hwaddr start,
> >>>>
> >>>>  static int spapr_populate_memory(sPAPREnvironment *spapr, void *fdt)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> -    hwaddr node0_size, mem_start, node_size;
> >>>> +    hwaddr mem_start, node_size;
> >>>>      int i;
> >>>>
> >>>> -    /* memory node(s) */
> >>>> -    if (nb_numa_nodes > 1 && node_mem[0] < ram_size) {
> >>>> -        node0_size = node_mem[0];
> >>>> -    } else {
> >>>> -        node0_size = ram_size;
> >>>> -    }
> >>>> -
> >>>> -    /* RMA */
> >>>> -    spapr_populate_memory_node(fdt, 0, 0, spapr->rma_size);
> >>>> -
> >>>> -    /* RAM: Node 0 */
> >>>> -    if (node0_size > spapr->rma_size) {
> >>>> -        spapr_populate_memory_node(fdt, 0, spapr->rma_size,
> >>>> -                                   node0_size - spapr->rma_size);
> >>>> -    }
> >>>> -
> >>>> -    /* RAM: Node 1 and beyond */
> >>>> -    mem_start = node0_size;
> >>>> -    for (i = 1; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
> >>>> +    for (i = 0, mem_start = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; ++i) {
> >>>> +        if (!node_mem[i]) {
> >>>> +            continue;
> >>>> +        }
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't this skip memoryless nodes? What actually puts the memoryless
> >>> node in the device-tree?
> >>
> >> It does skip.
> >>
> >>> And if you were to put them in, wouldn't spapr_populate_memory_node()
> >>> fail because we'd be creating two nodes with address@hidden where XXX is 
> >>> the
> >>> same (starting address) for both?
> >>
> >> I cannot do this now - there is no way to tell from the command line
> >> where I want NUMA node memory start from so I'll end up with multiple
> >> nodes with the same name and QEMU won't start. When NUMA fixes reach
> >> upstream, I'll try to work out something on top of that.
> > 
> > So in mst's tree, which I've rebased your patches, we have a struct
> > defining each NUMA node, which has a size (and the index is the nodeid).
> > I've got patches working that allow for sparse indexing, but I'm curious
> > what you think we should do for the naming.
> 
> 
> There should be no nodes for address@hidden in the device tree for memoryless
> NUMA nodes so no problem with naming.
> 
> 
> > I can send out the patches,
> > with the caveat that architectures still need to fix the remaining
> > issues for memoryless nodes?
> 
> ? If we do not change the existing behavior and just extending it, why will
> there be a problem?

Sorry, I meant to say to actually support memoryless or sparse NUMA
nodes, there may be further adjustments needed in the architecture code.
Your patches cover it (we don't need 7/7 anymore, btw) when rebased on
top of what I sent out, for powerpc. But x86 needs quite a bit of
massaging. So my point was that the generic qemu understands and
supports memoryless and sparse NUMA numbering (with my patches), but
that doesn't mean it will work as expected on a given platform yet. That
is status quo, though.

Thanks,
Nish