On 6/8/23 08:45, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 04:41:01PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> The @unionMems argument of qemuProcessSetupPid() function is not
>> necessary really as all callers pass 'true'. Drop it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 31 +++++++++++--------------------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
>> index d9269e37a1..74e85c8464 100644
>> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
>> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c
>> @@ -2550,8 +2550,7 @@ qemuProcessSetupPid(virDomainObj *vm,
>> virBitmap *cpumask,
>> unsigned long long period,
>> long long quota,
>> - virDomainThreadSchedParam *sched,
>> - bool unionMems)
>> + virDomainThreadSchedParam *sched)
>> {
>> qemuDomainObjPrivate *priv = vm->privateData;
>> virDomainNuma *numatune = vm->def->numa;
>> @@ -2591,21 +2590,16 @@ qemuProcessSetupPid(virDomainObj *vm,
>> if (virCgroupHasController(priv->cgroup,
>> VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_CPU) ||
>> virCgroupHasController(priv->cgroup,
>> VIR_CGROUP_CONTROLLER_CPUSET)) {
>>
>> - if (virDomainNumatuneGetMode(numatune, -1, &mem_mode) == 0 &&
>> - (mem_mode == VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_STRICT ||
>> - mem_mode == VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_RESTRICTIVE)) {
>> -
>> + if (virDomainNumatuneGetMode(numatune, -1, &mem_mode) == 0) {
>> /* QEMU allocates its memory from the emulator thread.
>> Thus it
>> * needs to access union of all host nodes configured. */
>> - if (unionMems &&
>> - mem_mode != VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_RESTRICTIVE) {
>> + if (mem_mode == VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_STRICT) {
>> qemuDomainNumatuneMaybeFormatNodesetUnion(vm, NULL,
>> &mem_mask);
>> - } else {
>> - if (virDomainNumatuneMaybeFormatNodeset(numatune,
>> -
>> priv->autoNodeset,
>> - &mem_mask,
>> -1) < 0)
>> - goto cleanup;
>> - }
>> + } else if (mem_mode ==
>> VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_RESTRICTIVE &&
>> + virDomainNumatuneMaybeFormatNodeset(numatune,
>> +
>> priv->autoNodeset,
>> + &mem_mask,
>> -1) < 0)
>> + goto cleanup;
>
> This body should also use squiggly brackets based on our coding style.
> It might be cleaner to switch it around and do:
>
> if (mem_mode == VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_RESTRICTIVE &&
> virDomainNumatuneMaybeFormatNodeset(numatune,
> priv->autoNodeset,
> &mem_mask, -1) < 0)
> goto cleanup;
> else if (mem_mode == VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_STRICT)
> qemuDomainNumatuneMaybeFormatNodesetUnion(vm, NULL, &mem_mask);
>
> or just do it as two different if's without the "else", mem_mode cannot
> be both anyway.
Good point. This got me playing with switch() and instantly made me
realize - whether MEM_STRICT and MEM_INTERLEAVE should do the same thing
here. I mean, it's now obvious that strict needs an union of all
(configured) nodes. But MEM_INTERLEAVE also needs it as the only
difference is how memory is distributed across those nodes (i.e.
irrelevant from CGroup's POV).
Of course, if anything, that would be a separate commit, but if I use
switch() here, then it's a trivial one-liner.
Michal
