On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 08:49:33 +0200
Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:31:50PM +0200, Wim ten Have wrote:
> >On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:36:58 +0200
> >Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:02:38PM +0200, Wim Ten Have wrote:
> >> >From: Wim ten Have <wim.ten.have@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >
> >> I haven't seen the previous versions, so sorry if I point out something
> >> that got changed already.
> >
> >There was a v1 and v2 cycle by Jim and Daniel 2 month back.
> >Due to personal issues whole got delayed at my end where i am
> >catching up.
> >
> >> >Add libvirtd NUMA cell domain administration functionality to
> >> >describe underlying cell id sibling distances in full fashion
> >> >when configuring HVM guests.
> >> >
> >> >[below is an example of a 4 node setup]
> >> >
> >> > <cpu>
> >> > <numa>
> >> > <cell id='0' cpus='0' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> >> > <distances>
> >> > <sibling id='0' value='10'/>
> >> > <sibling id='1' value='21'/>
> >> > <sibling id='2' value='31'/>
> >> > <sibling id='3' value='41'/>
> >> > </distances>
> >> > </cell>
> >> > <cell id='1' cpus='1' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> >> > <distances>
> >> > <sibling id='0' value='21'/>
> >> > <sibling id='1' value='10'/>
> >> > <sibling id='2' value='31'/>
> >> > <sibling id='3' value='41'/>
> >> > </distances>
> >> > </cell>
> >> > <cell id='2' cpus='2' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> >> > <distances>
> >> > <sibling id='0' value='31'/>
> >> > <sibling id='1' value='21'/>
> >> > <sibling id='2' value='10'/>
> >> > <sibling id='3' value='21'/>
> >> > </distances>
> >> > <cell id='3' cpus='3' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> >> > <distances>
> >> > <sibling id='0' value='41'/>
> >> > <sibling id='1' value='31'/>
> >> > <sibling id='2' value='21'/>
> >> > <sibling id='3' value='10'/>
> >> > </distances>
> >> > </cell>
> >> > </numa>
> >> > </cpu>
> >> >
> >>
> >> Are all those required? I don't see the point in requiring duplicate
> >> values.
> >
> >Sorry I am not sure I understand what you mean by "duplicate values"
> >here. Can you elaborate?
> >
>
> Sure. For simplicity let's assume 2 cells:
>
> <cell id='0' cpus='0' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> <distances>
> <sibling id='0' value='10'/>
> <sibling id='1' value='21'/>
> </distances>
> </cell>
> <cell id='1' cpus='1' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
> <distances>
> <sibling id='0' value='21'/> <!-- This should not be needed -->
> <sibling id='1' value='10'/>
> </distances>
> </cell>
The fields are not a necessity. And to reduce even more we could also
remove LOCAL_DISTANCES as they make a constant factor where;
(cell_id == sibling_id)
So, although the <distance> presentation of a guest domain may heavily,
giving this a look it seems far from attractive to me. I am not sure
if this is what we want and should do.
Let me go forward sending out "PATCH v4" addressing other comments and
reserve this idea for "PATCH v5".
Regards,
- Wim.
> >> >Changes under this commit concern all those that require adding
> >> >the valid data structures, virDomainNuma* functional routines and the
> >> >XML doc schema enhancements to enforce appropriate administration.
> >>
> >> I don't understand the point of this paragraph.
> >
> >Let me rephrase this paragraph in future version.
> >
> >> >These changes are accompanied with topic related documentation under
> >> >docs/formatdomain.html within the "CPU model and topology" extending the
> >> >"Guest NUMA topology" paragraph.
> >>
> >> This can be seen from the patch.
> >
> >Agree, so I'll address this in future version too.
> >
> >> >For terminology we refer to sockets as "nodes" where access to each
> >> >others' distinct resources such as memory make them "siblings" with a
> >> >designated "distance" between them. A specific design is described under
> >> >the ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface Specification)
> >> >within the chapter explaining the system's SLIT (System Locality Distance
> >> >Information Table).
> >>
> >> The above paragraph is also being added in the docs.
> >
> >True so I'll scratch this part of the commit message.
> >
> >> >These patches extend core libvirt's XML description of a virtual machine's
> >> >hardware to include NUMA distance information for sibling nodes, which
> >> >is then passed to Xen guests via libxl. Recently qemu landed support for
> >> >constructing the SLIT since commit 0f203430dd ("numa: Allow setting NUMA
> >> >distance for different NUMA nodes"), hence these core libvirt extensions
> >> >can also help other drivers in supporting this feature.
> >>
> >> This is not true, libxl changes are in separate patch.
> >
> >Like the previous comments and replies, I'll rearrange the commit
> >messages and rephrase them to be more specific to the patch.
> >
> >> There's a lot of copy-paste from the cover-letter...
> >
> >There is indeed room for improvement.
> >
> >> >These changes alter the docs/schemas/cputypes.rng enforcing
> >> >domain administration to follow the syntax below per numa cell id.
> >> >
> >> >These changes also alter docs/schemas/basictypes.rng to add
> >> >"numaDistanceValue" which is an "unsignedInt" with a minimum value
> >> >of 10 as 0-9 are reserved values and can not be used as System
> >> >Locality Distance Information Table data.
> >> >
> >> >Signed-off-by: Wim ten Have <wim.ten.have@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >---
> >> >Changes on v1:
> >> >- Add changes to docs/formatdomain.html.in describing schema update.
> >> >Changes on v2:
> >> >- Automatically apply distance symmetry maintaining cell <-> sibling.
> >> >- Check for maximum '255' on numaDistanceValue.
> >> >- Automatically complete empty distance ranges.
> >> >- Check that sibling_id's are in range with cell identifiers.
> >> >- Allow non-contiguous ranges, starting from any node id.
> >> >- Respect parameters as ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL fix functions and callers.
> >> >- Add and apply topoly for LOCAL_DISTANCE=10 and REMOTE_DISTANCE=20.
> >> >---
> >> > docs/formatdomain.html.in | 70 +++++++++-
> >> > docs/schemas/basictypes.rng | 9 ++
> >> > docs/schemas/cputypes.rng | 18 +++
> >> > src/conf/cpu_conf.c | 2 +-
> >> > src/conf/numa_conf.c | 323 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> > src/conf/numa_conf.h | 25 +++-
> >> > src/libvirt_private.syms | 6 +
> >> > 7 files changed, 444 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> >diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> >> >index 8ca7637..19a2ac7 100644
> >> >--- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> >> >+++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in
> >> >@@ -1529,7 +1529,75 @@
> >> > </p>
> >> >
> >> > <p>
> >> >- This guest NUMA specification is currently available only for QEMU/KVM.
> >> >+ This guest NUMA specification is currently available only for
> >> >+ QEMU/KVM and Xen. Whereas Xen driver also allows for a distinct
> >> >+ description of NUMA arranged <code>sibling</code> <code>cell</code>
> >> >+ <code>distances</code> <span class="since">Since 3.6.0</span>.
> >> >+ </p>
> >> >+
> >> >+ <p>
> >> >+ Under NUMA h/w architecture, distinct resources such as memory
> >> >+ create a designated distance between <code>cell</code> and
> >> >+ <code>siblings</code> that now can be described with the help of
> >> >+ <code>distances</code>. A detailed describtion can be found within
> >> >+ the ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface Specification)
> >> >+ within the chapter explaining the system's SLIT (System Locality
> >> >+ Distance Information Table).
> >> >+ </p>
> >> >+
> >> >+<pre>
> >> >+...
> >> >+<cpu>
> >> >+ ...
> >> >+ <numa>
> >> >+ <cell id='0' cpus='0,4-7' memory='512000' unit='KiB'>
> >> >+ <distances>
> >> >+ <sibling id='0' value='10'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='1' value='21'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='2' value='31'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='3' value='41'/>
> >> >+ </distances>
> >> >+ </cell>
> >> >+ <cell id='1' cpus='1,8-10,12-15' memory='512000' unit='KiB' memAccess='shared'>
> >> >+ <distances>
> >> >+ <sibling id='0' value='21'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='1' value='10'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='2' value='21'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='3' value='31'/>
> >> >+ </distances>
> >> >+ </cell>
> >> >+ <cell id='2' cpus='2,11' memory='512000' unit='KiB' memAccess='shared'>
> >> >+ <distances>
> >> >+ <sibling id='0' value='31'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='1' value='21'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='2' value='10'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='3' value='21'/>
> >> >+ </distances>
> >> >+ </cell>
> >> >+ <cell id='3' cpus='3' memory='512000' unit='KiB'>
> >> >+ <distances>
> >> >+ <sibling id='0' value='41'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='1' value='31'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='2' value='21'/>
> >> >+ <sibling id='3' value='10'/>
> >> >+ </distances>
> >> >+ </cell>
> >> >+ </numa>
> >> >+ ...
> >> >+</cpu>
> >> >+...</pre>
> >> >+
> >> >+ <p>
> >> >+ Under Xen driver, if no <code>distances</code> are given to describe
> >> >+ the SLIT data between different cells, it will default to a scheme
> >> >+ using 10 for local and 20 for remote distances. Made defaults
> >> >+ for guest OS when no SLIT is specified.
> >> >+ <br/>See include/linux/topology.h under
> >> >+ <pre>
> >> >+ /* Conform to ACPI 2.0 SLIT distance definitions */
> >> >+ #define LOCAL_DISTANCE 10
> >> >+ #define REMOTE_DISTANCE 20
> >> >+ </pre>
> >
> >> I wouldn't include the code in the <pre>, I don't see the point for that.
> >
> >Let me check.
> >
> >> > </p>
> >> >
> >> > <h3><a id="elementsEvents">Events configuration</a></h3>
> >> >diff --git a/docs/schemas/basictypes.rng b/docs/schemas/basictypes.rng
> >> >index 1ea667c..bbef282 100644
> >> >--- a/docs/schemas/basictypes.rng
> >> >+++ b/docs/schemas/basictypes.rng
> >> >@@ -77,6 +77,15 @@
> >> > </choice>
> >> > </define>
> >> >
> >> >+ <define name="numaDistanceValue">
> >> >+ <choice>
> >> >+ <data type="unsignedInt">
> >> >+ <param name="minInclusive">10</param>
> >> >+ <param name="maxInclusive">255</param>
> >> >+ </data>
> >> >+ </choice>
> >
> >> Why <choice>?
> >
> >Good point! ... will fix this.
> >
> >> >+ </define>
> >> >+
> >> > <define name="pciaddress">
> >> > <optional>
> >> > <attribute name="domain">
> >> >diff --git a/docs/schemas/cputypes.rng b/docs/schemas/cputypes.rng
> >> >index 3eef16a..c45b6df 100644
> >> >--- a/docs/schemas/cputypes.rng
> >> >+++ b/docs/schemas/cputypes.rng
> >> >@@ -129,6 +129,24 @@
> >> > </choice>
> >> > </attribute>
> >> > </optional>
> >> >+ <optional>
> >> >+ <element name="distances">
> >> >+ <oneOrMore>
> >> >+ <ref name="numaDistance"/>
> >> >+ </oneOrMore>
> >> >+ </element>
> >> >+ </optional>
> >> >+ </element>
> >> >+ </define>
> >> >+
> >> >+ <define name="numaDistance">
> >> >+ <element name="sibling">
> >> >+ <attribute name="id">
> >> >+ <ref name="unsignedInt"/>
> >> >+ </attribute>
> >> >+ <attribute name="value">
> >> >+ <ref name="numaDistanceValue"/>
> >> >+ </attribute>
> >> > </element>
> >> > </define>
> >> >
> >> >diff --git a/src/conf/cpu_conf.c b/src/conf/cpu_conf.c
> >> >index c21d11d..8d804a1 100644
> >> >--- a/src/conf/cpu_conf.c
> >> >+++ b/src/conf/cpu_conf.c
> >> >@@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ virCPUDefFormatBufFull(virBufferPtr buf,
> >> > if (virCPUDefFormatBuf(&childrenBuf, def, updateCPU) < 0)
> >> > goto cleanup;
> >> >
> >> >- if (virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(&childrenBuf, numa) < 0)
> >> >+ if (virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML(&childrenBuf, numa) < 0)
> >> > goto cleanup;
> >
> >> Changing function names should be separate patch. Why is this
> >> changed anyway?
> >
> >I renamed virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat() to virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML()
> >to make it consistent with already existing function names like
> > virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML()
> >
>
> Then put it in a separate patch.
>
> >> > if (virBufferCheckError(&attributeBuf) < 0 ||
> >> >diff --git a/src/conf/numa_conf.c b/src/conf/numa_conf.c
> >> >index bfd3703..fb2a74c 100644
> >> >--- a/src/conf/numa_conf.c
> >> >+++ b/src/conf/numa_conf.c
> >> >@@ -29,6 +29,13 @@
> >> > #include "virnuma.h"
> >> > #include "virstring.h"
> >> >
> >> >+/*
> >> >+ * Distance definitions defined Conform ACPI 2.0 SLIT.
> >> >+ * See include/linux/topology.h
> >> >+ */
> >> >+#define LOCAL_DISTANCE 10
> >> >+#define REMOTE_DISTANCE 20
> >> >+
> >> > #define VIR_FROM_THIS VIR_FROM_DOMAIN
> >> >
> >> > VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainNumatuneMemMode,
> >> >@@ -48,6 +55,8 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainMemoryAccess, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_ACCESS_LAST,
> >> > "shared",
> >> > "private")
> >> >
> >> >+typedef struct _virDomainNumaDistance virDomainNumaDistance;
> >> >+typedef virDomainNumaDistance *virDomainNumaDistancePtr;
> >> >
> >> > typedef struct _virDomainNumaNode virDomainNumaNode;
> >> > typedef virDomainNumaNode *virDomainNumaNodePtr;
> >> >@@ -66,6 +75,12 @@ struct _virDomainNuma {
> >> > virBitmapPtr nodeset; /* host memory nodes where this guest node resides */
> >> > virDomainNumatuneMemMode mode; /* memory mode selection */
> >> > virDomainMemoryAccess memAccess; /* shared memory access configuration */
> >> >+
> >> >+ struct _virDomainNumaDistance {
> >> >+ unsigned int value; /* locality value for node i->j or j->i */
> >> >+ unsigned int cellid;
> >> >+ } *distances; /* remote node distances */
> >> >+ size_t ndistances;
> >> > } *mem_nodes; /* guest node configuration */
> >> > size_t nmem_nodes;
> >> >
> >> >@@ -686,6 +701,128 @@ virDomainNumatuneNodesetIsAvailable(virDomainNumaPtr numatune,
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >+static int
> >> >+virDomainNumaDefNodeDistanceParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def,
> >> >+ xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt,
> >> >+ unsigned int cur_cell)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ int ret = -1;
> >> >+ int sibling;
> >> >+ char *tmp = NULL;
> >> >+ xmlNodePtr *nodes = NULL;
> >> >+ size_t i, ndistances = def->nmem_nodes;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (!ndistances)
> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (!virXPathNode("./distances[1]/sibling", ctxt))
> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if ((sibling = virXPathNodeSet("./distances[1]/sibling", ctxt, &nodes)) <= 0) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s",
> >> >+ _("NUMA distances defined without siblings"));
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >
> >> Aren't these two blocks of code checking the same thing?
> >
> >They are not checking the same thing. The first one checks if there
> >are distances under the cell description at all, where the second test
> >ensures that distances descibing the cell actually hold siblings.
> >
>
> Sure, but if you remove the first block the code will work the same way,
> thus it's pointless IMHO.
>
> >Let me add a comment similar to the one in virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML().
> >
> >> >+ for (i = 0; i < sibling; i++) {
> >> >+ virDomainNumaDistancePtr ldist, rdist;
> >> >+ unsigned int sibling_id, sibling_value;
> >> >+
> >> >+ /* siblings are in order of parsing or explicitly numbered */
> >> >+ if ((tmp = virXMLPropString(nodes[i], "id"))) {
> >> >+ if (virStrToLong_uip(tmp, NULL, 10, &sibling_id) < 0) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> >> >+ _("Invalid 'id' attribute in NUMA distances for sibling: '%s'"),
> >> >+ tmp);
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+ }
> >> >+ VIR_FREE(tmp);
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (sibling_id >= ndistances) {
> >
> >> Isn't sibling_id uninitialized in case there is no 'id' specified?
> >
> >You are right ... I'll fix this.
> >
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> >> >+ _("No cell administration for 'sibling_id %d' under NUMA cell '%d' "),
> >> >+ sibling_id, cur_cell);
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ /* We need a locality value. Check and correct
> >> >+ * distance to local and distance to remote node.
> >> >+ */
> >> >+ if (!(tmp = virXMLPropString(nodes[i], "value"))) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> >> >+ _("Missing 'value' attribute in NUMA distances for sibling id: '%d'"),
> >> >+ sibling_id);
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ /* It needs to be applicable */
> >> >+ if (virStrToLong_uip(tmp, NULL, 10, &sibling_value) < 0) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> >> >+ _("Invalid 'value' attribute in NUMA distances for sibling id: '%d'"),
> >> >+ sibling_id);
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+ VIR_FREE(tmp);
> >> >+
> >> >+ ldist = def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].distances;
> >> >+ if (!ldist) {
> >> >+ if (def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].ndistances) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> >> >+ _("Erratic 'ndistances' set in NUMA distances for sibling id: '%d'"),
> >> >+ cur_cell);
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (VIR_ALLOC_N(ldist, ndistances) < 0)
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (!ldist[cur_cell].value)
> >> >+ ldist[cur_cell].value = LOCAL_DISTANCE;
> >> >+ ldist[cur_cell].cellid = cur_cell;
> >> >+ def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].ndistances = ndistances;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ ldist[sibling_id].cellid = sibling_id;
> >> >+ ldist[sibling_id].value = sibling_value;
> >
> >> I don't see the check for 10 <= sibling_value <= 255 anywhere.
> >
> >That is already taken care of by the schema validation.
> >
>
> Which can be skipped. You cannot rely on that.
>
> >> >+ def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].distances = ldist;
> >> >+
> >> >+ rdist = def->mem_nodes[sibling_id].distances;
> >> >+ if (!rdist) {
> >> >+ if (def->mem_nodes[sibling_id].ndistances) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR,
> >> >+ _("Erratic 'ndistances' set in NUMA distances for sibling id: '%d'"),
> >> >+ sibling_id);
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (VIR_ALLOC_N(rdist, ndistances) < 0)
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (!rdist[sibling_id].value)
> >> >+ rdist[sibling_id].value = LOCAL_DISTANCE;
> >> >+ rdist[sibling_id].cellid = sibling_id;
> >> >+ def->mem_nodes[sibling_id].ndistances = ndistances;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ rdist[cur_cell].cellid = cur_cell;
> >> >+ rdist[cur_cell].value = sibling_value;
> >> >+ def->mem_nodes[sibling_id].distances = rdist;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ ret = 0;
> >> >+
> >> >+ cleanup:
> >> >+ if (ret) {
> >> >+ for (i = 0; i < ndistances; i++)
> >> >+ VIR_FREE(def->mem_nodes[i].distances);
> >> >+ }
> >> >+ VIR_FREE(nodes);
> >> >+ VIR_FREE(tmp);
> >> >+
> >> >+ return ret;
> >> >+}
> >> >+
> >> > int
> >> > virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def,
> >> > xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt)
> >> >@@ -694,7 +831,7 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def,
> >> > xmlNodePtr oldNode = ctxt->node;
> >> > char *tmp = NULL;
> >> > int n;
> >> >- size_t i;
> >> >+ size_t i, j;
> >> > int ret = -1;
> >> >
> >> > /* check if NUMA definition is present */
> >> >@@ -712,7 +849,6 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def,
> >> > def->nmem_nodes = n;
> >> >
> >> > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> >> >- size_t j;
> >> > int rc;
> >> > unsigned int cur_cell = i;
> >> >
> >> >@@ -788,6 +924,10 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def,
> >> > def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].memAccess = rc;
> >> > VIR_FREE(tmp);
> >> > }
> >> >+
> >> >+ /* Parse NUMA distances info */
> >> >+ if (virDomainNumaDefNodeDistanceParseXML(def, ctxt, cur_cell) < 0)
> >> >+ goto cleanup;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > ret = 0;
> >> >@@ -801,8 +941,8 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > int
> >> >-virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(virBufferPtr buf,
> >> >- virDomainNumaPtr def)
> >> >+virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML(virBufferPtr buf,
> >> >+ virDomainNumaPtr def)
> >
> >> Same here with the rename.
> >
> >To make it consistent with already existing function names like
> > virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML()
> >
> >> > {
> >> > virDomainMemoryAccess memAccess;
> >> > char *cpustr;
> >> >@@ -815,6 +955,8 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(virBufferPtr buf,
> >> > virBufferAddLit(buf, "<numa>\n");
> >> > virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2);
> >> > for (i = 0; i < ncells; i++) {
> >> >+ int ndistances;
> >> >+
> >> > memAccess = virDomainNumaGetNodeMemoryAccessMode(def, i);
> >> >
> >> > if (!(cpustr = virBitmapFormat(virDomainNumaGetNodeCpumask(def, i))))
> >> >@@ -829,7 +971,32 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(virBufferPtr buf,
> >> > if (memAccess)
> >> > virBufferAsprintf(buf, " memAccess='%s'",
> >> > virDomainMemoryAccessTypeToString(memAccess));
> >> >- virBufferAddLit(buf, "/>\n");
> >> >+
> >> >+ ndistances = def->mem_nodes[i].ndistances;
> >> >+ if (!ndistances) {
> >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "/>\n");
> >> >+ } else {
> >> >+ size_t j;
> >> >+ virDomainNumaDistancePtr distances = def->mem_nodes[i].distances;
> >> >+
> >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, ">\n");
> >> >+ virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2);
> >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "<distances>\n");
> >> >+ virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2);
> >> >+ for (j = 0; j < ndistances; j++) {
> >> >+ if (distances[j].value) {
> >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "<sibling");
> >> >+ virBufferAsprintf(buf, " id='%d'", distances[j].cellid);
> >> >+ virBufferAsprintf(buf, " value='%d'", distances[j].value);
> >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "/>\n");
> >> >+ }
> >> >+ }
> >> >+ virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2);
> >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "</distances>\n");
> >> >+ virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2);
> >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "</cell>\n");
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> > VIR_FREE(cpustr);
> >> > }
> >> > virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2);
> >> >@@ -922,13 +1089,146 @@ virDomainNumaCheckABIStability(virDomainNumaPtr src,
> >> > size_t
> >> > virDomainNumaGetNodeCount(virDomainNumaPtr numa)
> >> > {
> >> >- if (!numa)
> >> >+ if (!numa || !numa->mem_nodes)
> >
> >> Just "why?" ^^
> >
> >Overly cautious. ... Will revert!
> >
> >> > return 0;
> >> >
> >> > return numa->nmem_nodes;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >+size_t
> >> >+virDomainNumaSetNodeCount(virDomainNumaPtr numa, size_t nmem_nodes)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ if (!nmem_nodes) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> >> >+ _("Cannot set an empty nmem_nodes set"));
> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (numa->mem_nodes) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s",
> >> >+ _("Cannot alter an existing nmem_nodes set"));
> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (VIR_ALLOC_N(numa->mem_nodes, nmem_nodes) < 0)
> >> >+ return 0;
> >> >+
> >> >+ numa->nmem_nodes = nmem_nodes;
> >> >+
> >> >+ return numa->nmem_nodes;
> >> >+}
> >> >+
> >
> >> Are you introducing a function that is not used anywhere as a part of a
> >> patch that does something else as well? I can't see the point of this
> >> function really... It looks like you are guarding against user input
> >> which doesn't really makes sense here for me. Maybe I need to see
> >> where it is used but it's not in this patch...
> >
> >It is used in [PATCH v3 3/4] by xenParseXLVnuma().
> >
>
> Then introduce it either there or in its own patch. Not in a patch that
> is parsing XML.
>
> >> >+size_t
> >> >+virDomainNumaGetNodeDistance(virDomainNumaPtr numa,
> >> >+ size_t node,
> >> >+ size_t cellid)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ virDomainNumaDistancePtr distances = NULL;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (node < numa->nmem_nodes)
> >> >+ distances = numa->mem_nodes[node].distances;
> >> >+
> >> >+ /*
> >> >+ * Present the configured distance value. If
> >> >+ * out of range or not available set the platform
> >> >+ * defined default for local and remote nodes.
> >> >+ */
> >> >+ if (!distances ||
> >> >+ !distances[cellid].value ||
> >> >+ !numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances)
> >> >+ return (node == cellid) ? \
> >> >+ LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE;
> >> >+
> >> >+ return distances[cellid].value;
> >> >+}
> >> >+
> >> >+
> >> >+int
> >> >+virDomainNumaSetNodeDistance(virDomainNumaPtr numa,
> >> >+ size_t node,
> >> >+ size_t cellid,
> >> >+ unsigned int value)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ virDomainNumaDistancePtr distances;
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (node >= numa->nmem_nodes) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
> >> >+ _("Argument 'node' %zu outranges defined number "
> >> >+ "of NUMA nodes"), node);
> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ distances = numa->mem_nodes[node].distances;
> >> >+ if (!distances ||
> >> >+ cellid >= numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s",
> >> >+ _("Arguments under memnode element do not "
> >> >+ "correspond with existing guest's NUMA cell"));
> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ /*
> >> >+ * Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
> >> >+ * Specification version 6.1. Chapter 5.2.17
> >> >+ * System Locality Distance Information Table
> >> >+ * ... Distance values of 0-9 are reserved.
> >> >+ */
> >> >+ if (value < LOCAL_DISTANCE) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
> >> >+ _("Distance value of %d is in 0-9 reserved range"),
> >> >+ value);
> >> >+ return -1;
> >> >+ }
> >> >+
> >> >+ if (value > LOCAL_DISTANCE && node == cellid) {
> >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED,
> >> >+ _("Distance value %d under node %zu does "
> >> >+ "not meet LOCAL_DISTANCE of 10"),
> >
> >> Maybe you meant REMOTE_DISTANCE here?
> >
> >LOCAL_DISTANCE is meant here because the (node == cellid) expression
> >tests for the node itself. Maybe moving (node == cellid) to the front
> >makes it more clear.
> >
>
> Oh, I missed the "node == cellid" part, sorry for that. In that case
> why parse the value when it can only be 10?
>
> >> If there were tests it would be visible. Similarly if this function
> >> was used anywhere in this patch.
> >
> >I am in agreement on adding more tests and specifically one for this scenario.
> >
> >> I don't feel like reading further, other may continue the review.
> >
> >Thanks for your review comments so far.
> >
> >> Have a nice day,
> >> Martin
> >
> >Regards,
> >- Wim.
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
