|
From: | Daniel Henrique Barboza |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] NUMA: Apply socket-NUMA-node boundary for aarch64 and RiscV machines |
Date: | Fri, 24 Feb 2023 06:26:48 -0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.2 |
On 2/24/23 04:09, Gavin Shan wrote:
On 2/24/23 12:18 AM, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:On 2/23/23 05:13, Gavin Shan wrote:For arm64 and RiscV architecture, the driver (/base/arch_topology.c) is used to populate the CPU topology in the Linux guest. It's required that the CPUs in one socket can't span mutiple NUMA nodes. Otherwise, the Linux scheduling domain can't be sorted out, as the following warning message indicates. To avoid the unexpected confusion, this series attempts to rejects such kind of insane configurations. -smp 6,maxcpus=6,sockets=2,clusters=1,cores=3,threads=1 \ -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0-1,memdev=ram0 \ -numa node,nodeid=1,cpus=2-3,memdev=ram1 \ -numa node,nodeid=2,cpus=4-5,memdev=ram2 \And why is this a QEMU problem? This doesn't hurt ACPI. Also, this restriction impacts breaks ARM guests in the wild that are running non-Linux OSes. I don't see why we should impact use cases that has nothing to do with Linux Kernel feelings about sockets - NUMA nodes exclusivity.With above configuration, CPU-0/1/2 are put into socket-0-cluster-0 while CPU-3/4/5 are put into socket-1-cluster-0, meaning CPU-2/3 belong to different socket and cluster. However, CPU-2/3 are associated with NUMA node-1. In summary, multiple CPUs in different clusters and sockets have been associated with one NUMA node. If I'm correct, the configuration isn't sensible in a baremetal environment and same Linux kernel is supposed to work well for baremetal and virtualized machine. So I think QEMU needs to emulate the topology as much as we can to match with the baremetal environment. It's the reason why I think it's a QEMU problem even it doesn't hurt ACPI. As I said in the reply to Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> in another thread, we may need to gurantee that the CPUs in one cluster can't be split to multiple NUMA nodes, which matches with the baremetal environment, as I can understand. Right, the restriction to have socket-NUMA-node or cluster-NUMA-node boundary will definitely break the configurations running in the wild.
What about a warning? If the user attempts to use an exotic NUMA configuration like the one you mentioned we can print something like: "Warning: NUMA topologies where a socket belongs to multiple NUMA nodes can cause OSes like Linux to misbehave" This would inform the user what might be going wrong in case Linux is crashing/error out on them and then the user is free to fix their topology (or the kernel). And at the same time we wouldn't break existing stuff that happens to be working. Thanks, Daniel
Thanks, Gavin [...]
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |