Hi Drew,
On 2/23/23 11:25 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 04:13:57PM +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
For arm64 and RiscV architecture, the driver (/base/arch_topology.c) is
used to populate the CPU topology in the Linux guest. It's required that
the CPUs in one socket can't span mutiple NUMA nodes. Otherwise, the Linux
scheduling domain can't be sorted out, as the following warning message
indicates. To avoid the unexpected confusion, this series attempts to
rejects such kind of insane configurations.
I'm not sure 'insane' is the right word, maybe 'irregular'. I've never
seen, and don't really expect to find, specifications stating that arm
and/or riscv must have 1:1 mappings for numa nodes and sockets. But, as
QEMU machine types can choose certain configurations to support, if
everyone is in agreement to restrict sbsa-ref and arm/riscv virt to 1:1
mappings, then why not. However, I suggest stating that this is simply a
choice being made for these boards, since the expectation of needing
"irregular" configurations is low. We should not be trying to use Linux
assumptions as rationale, since other OSes may cope better with irregular
configurations.
Also, I suggest adding a comment to the boards, which adopt this
restriction, which explains that it's only a platform choice, not
something specified by the architecture.
[...]
Thanks for your comments. Yes, "irregular" is definitely better words. I failed
to find the statement that ARM64 has the requirement for 1:1 mapping between
socket and NUMA node, which makes it hard to tell if the restriction is required
from architectural level. However, the linux driver
(drivers/base/arch_topology.c)
considers both CPU-to-NUMA-association and CPU toplogy from ACPI PPTT when the
CPU set in the core group is calculated. It means the CPU-to-NUMA-association
can affect the CPU topology seen by Linux scheduler.
With the restriction of 1:1 mapping between socket and NUMA node, or between
cluster and NUMA node as I mentioned in the reply to Daniel P. Berrangé
<[email protected]>,
the existing configuration for other OSes can become invalid.
Yes, a comment to mention it's a platform choice, not architectural requirement,
definitely helps to understand the context.
Thanks,
Gavin
