[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] hw/arm/virt: Replace smp_parse with one that pref

From: wangyanan (Y)
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] hw/arm/virt: Replace smp_parse with one that prefers cores
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:04:18 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0

Hi Drew,

On 2021/4/27 22:58, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:07:45PM +0800, Yanan Wang wrote:
From: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>

The virt machine type has never used the CPU topology parameters, other
than number of online CPUs and max CPUs. When choosing how to allocate
those CPUs the default has been to assume cores. In preparation for
using the other CPU topology parameters let's use an smp_parse that
prefers cores over sockets. We can also enforce the topology matches
max_cpus check because we have no legacy to preserve.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Yanan Wang <wangyanan55@huawei.com>
  hw/arm/virt.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
Thanks, this patch matches [1]. Of course, I've always considered this
patch to be something of an RFC, though. Is there any harm in defaulting
to sockets over cores? If not, I wonder if we shouldn't just leave the
default as it is to avoid a mach-virt specific smp parser.
From my view, I did't find any harm in defaulting to sockets over cores, but I'm not really sure.. At least, the arch-neutral function smp_parse and pc_smp_parse for x86 all prefer sockets over cores in default.
  The "no
topology" compat variable will keep existing machine types from switching
from cores to sockets, so we don't need to worry about that.
Yes, I agree about this.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]