[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v4 09/11] spapr: Support topologi
From: |
Bharata B Rao |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v4 09/11] spapr: Support topologies with unfilled cores |
Date: |
Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:28:02 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 10:44:57AM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 04/09/15 09:01, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:57:15AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >> QEMU currently supports CPU topologies where there can be cores
> >> which are not completely filled with all the threads as per the
> >> specifed SMT mode.
> >>
> >> Restore support for such topologies (Eg -smp 15,cores=4,threads=4)
> >> The last core will always have the deficit even when -device options are
> >> used to cold-plug the cores.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <address@hidden>
> >
> > Is there a reason to support these silly toplogies, or should we just
> > error out if this is specified?
Only reason was to ensure that existing guest with such topologies
continue to boot like before.
>
> FYI, I've recently submitted a patch that tries to catch such illegal
> SMP configurations and simply errors out in that case:
>
> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-07/msg04549.html
>
> It's not upstream yet, but already in Eduardo's x86 branch. I think this
> will reject the bad topology from your example, too.
It does reject -smp 15,cores=4,threads=4, but with
-smp 15,cores=4,threads=4,maxcpus=16, the guest still boots with weird
topology.
address@hidden ~]# lscpu
Architecture: ppc64
CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
Byte Order: Big Endian
CPU(s): 16
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-14
Off-line CPU(s) list: 15
Thread(s) per core: 3
Core(s) per socket: 1
Socket(s): 4
NUMA node(s): 1
Model: IBM pSeries (emulated by qemu)
L1d cache: 64K
L1i cache: 32K
NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-14
address@hidden ~]# ppc64_cpu --info
Core 0: 0* 1* 2* 3*
Core 1: 4* 5* 6* 7*
Core 2: 8* 9* 10* 11*
Core 3: 12* 13* 14* 15
Should such topologies also be prevented from booting ?
Regards,
Bharata.