Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v0 PATCH] cpus: Convert cpu_index into a bitmap

[Bharata B Rao]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:51:36AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 13.03.2015 um 12:56 schrieb Bharata B Rao:
> > From: Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>
> > 
> > Currently CPUState.cpu_index is monotonically increasing and a newly
> > created CPU always gets the next higher index. The next available
> > index is calculated by counting the existing number of CPUs. This is
> > fine as long as we only add CPUs, but there are architectures which
> > are starting to support CPU removal too. For an architecture like PowerPC
> > which derives its CPU identifier (device tree ID) from cpu_index, the
> > existing logic of generating cpu_index values causes problems.
> > 
> > With the currently proposed method of handling vCPU removal by parking
> > the vCPU fd in QEMU
> > (Ref: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-02/msg02604.html),
> > generating cpu_index this way will not work for PowerPC.
> > 
> > This patch changes the way cpu_index is handed out by maintaining
> > a bit map of the CPUs that tracks both addition and removal of CPUs.
> > 
> > I am not sure if this is the right and an acceptable approach. The
> > alternative is to do something similar for PowerPC alone and not
> > depend on cpu_index.
> > 
> > I have tested this with out-of-the-tree patches for CPU hot plug and
> > removal on x86 and sPAPR PowerPC.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  exec.c                      | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >  include/exec/exec-all.h     |  1 +
> >  target-alpha/cpu.c          |  6 ++++++
> >  target-arm/cpu.c            |  1 +
> >  target-cris/cpu.c           |  6 ++++++
> >  target-i386/cpu.c           |  6 ++++++
> >  target-lm32/cpu.c           |  6 ++++++
> >  target-m68k/cpu.c           |  6 ++++++
> >  target-microblaze/cpu.c     |  6 ++++++
> >  target-mips/cpu.c           |  6 ++++++
> >  target-moxie/cpu.c          |  6 ++++++
> >  target-openrisc/cpu.c       |  6 ++++++
> >  target-ppc/translate_init.c |  6 ++++++
> >  target-s390x/cpu.c          |  1 +
> >  target-sh4/cpu.c            |  6 ++++++
> >  target-sparc/cpu.c          |  1 +
> >  target-tricore/cpu.c        |  5 +++++
> >  target-unicore32/cpu.c      |  6 ++++++
> >  target-xtensa/cpu.c         |  6 ++++++
> >  19 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
> > index e97071a..7760f2d 100644
> > --- a/exec.c
> > +++ b/exec.c
> > @@ -530,21 +530,40 @@ void tcg_cpu_address_space_init(CPUState *cpu, 
> > AddressSpace *as)
> >  }
> >  #endif
> >  
> > +static DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_index_map, MAX_CPUMASK_BITS);
> 
> I don't see this constant being defined in this patch. How large is it?
> I wonder whether this might be stolen from an x86 ACPI/NUMA context and
> forced onto all architectures now?

I thought MAX_CPUMASK_BITS defines the max cpus possible.

>From include/sysemu/sysemu.h

/* The following shall be true for all CPUs:
 *   cpu->cpu_index < max_cpus <= MAX_CPUMASK_BITS
 *
 * Note that cpu->get_arch_id() may be larger than MAX_CPUMASK_BITS.
 */
#define MAX_CPUMASK_BITS 255

> 
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> > +int max_cpus = 1; /* TODO: Check if this is correct ? */
> 
> This strikes me as wrong, as forking will create a copy of the initial
> CPUState, see cpu_copy(). The cpu_index might get overwritten inside the
> CPUState, not sure about that, but this here is global state.
> 
> Can't we just keep the current code for CONFIG_USER_ONLY and skip all
> the bitmap functions?

Yes that would better than to touch CONFIG_USER_ONLY.

> 
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +static int cpu_get_free_index(void)
> > +{
> > +    int cpu = find_first_zero_bit(cpu_index_map, max_cpus);
> > +
> > +    if (cpu == max_cpus) {
> > +        fprintf(stderr, "WARNING: qemu: Trying to use more "
> > +                        "CPUs than allowed max of %d\n", max_cpus);
> 
> This is a bad API. :) If we can't handle it, use an Error** errp
> argument to pass that info outwards. Imagine this happening from QMP
> device-add, then this warning will go unnoticed on stderr.

I wanted to have an Error argument, but realized that instance_init
doesn't take an Error argument and as a consequence, it appears that
object_new() can't fail. So I depended on (cpu->cpu_index >= max_cpus)
or equivalent check in realize call to catch this error.

But as being discussed in other thread on the same subject, if
cpu_exec_init call moves to realize, this will get solved neatly.

Regards,
Bharata.