Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 20:27:50 +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
> > Recently, bhyve started supporting specifying guest CPU topology.
> > It looks this way:
> >
> > bhyve -c cpus=C,sockets=S,cores=C,threads=T ...
> >
> > The old behaviour with bhyve -c C, where C is a number of vCPUs, is
> > still supported.
> >
> > So if we have CPU topology in the domain XML, use the new syntax,
> > otherwise keeps the old behaviour.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Bogorodskiy <bogorodskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > src/bhyve/bhyve_capabilities.c | 7 +++--
> > src/bhyve/bhyve_capabilities.h | 1 +
> > src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c | 17 +++++++++++-
> > .../bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.args | 9 +++++++
> > .../bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.ldargs | 3 +++
> > .../bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.xml | 26 +++++++++++++++++++
> > tests/bhyvexml2argvtest.c | 7 ++++-
> > 7 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 tests/bhyvexml2argvdata/bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.args
> > create mode 100644 tests/bhyvexml2argvdata/bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.ldargs
> > create mode 100644 tests/bhyvexml2argvdata/bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.xml
>
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c b/src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c
> > index e3f7ded7db..b319518520 100644
> > --- a/src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c
> > +++ b/src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c
> > @@ -467,7 +467,22 @@ virBhyveProcessBuildBhyveCmd(virConnectPtr conn,
> >
> > /* CPUs */
> > virCommandAddArg(cmd, "-c");
> > - virCommandAddArgFormat(cmd, "%d", virDomainDefGetVcpus(def));
> > + if (def->cpu && def->cpu->sockets) {
> > + if ((bhyveDriverGetCaps(conn) & BHYVE_CAP_CPUTOPOLOGY) != 0) {
> > + virCommandAddArgFormat(cmd, "cpus=%d,sockets=%d,cores=%d,threads=%d",
> > + virDomainDefGetVcpus(def),
> > + def->cpu->sockets,
> > + def->cpu->cores,
> > + def->cpu->threads);
>
> Note that libvirt XML->def conversion does not validate that def->nvcpus
> equals to def->cpu->sockets * def->cpu->cores * def->cpu->threads.
>
> This is a historic artefact since qemu did not do it either. They
> started doing it just recently. It might be worth adding that check to
> be sure in the future.
Good point!
Indeed, bhyve validates CPU topology in a way you described, so it makes
sense to fail early instead of waiting the command to fail. I'll roll a
v2.
> > + } else {
> > + virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s",
> > + _("Installed bhyve binary does not support "
> > + "defining CPU topology"));
> > + goto error;
> > + }
>
> The rest looks good to me, so ACK if you don't think the check for the
> topology<->vcpu count is important enough.
Roman Bogorodskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
