On 07/29/2018 11:12 PM, bing.niu@intel.com wrote:
From: Bing Niu <bing.niu@intel.com>
Introduce virResctrlAllocMemoryBandwidthFormat and virResctrlAllocParseMemoryBandwidthLine which will format and parse an entry in the schemata file for MBA.
Signed-off-by: Bing Niu <bing.niu@intel.com> --- src/util/virresctrl.c | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 141 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/util/virresctrl.c b/src/util/virresctrl.c index 8a25798..1cbf9b3 100644 --- a/src/util/virresctrl.c +++ b/src/util/virresctrl.c @@ -986,6 +986,139 @@ virResctrlAllocGetID(virResctrlAllocPtr alloc) }
+/* Format the Memory Bandwidth Allocation line that will be found in + * the schemata files. The line should be start with "MB:" and be + * followed by "id=value" pairs separated by a colon such as:
semi-colon
+ * + * MB:0=100;1=100 + * + * which indicates node id 0 has 100 percent bandwith and node id 1 + * has 100 percent bandwidth
s/$/. A trailing semi-colon is not formatted./
+ */
[...]
+/* Parse a schemata formatted MB: entry. Format details are described in + * virResctrlAllocMemoryBandwidthFormat. + */ +static int +virResctrlAllocParseMemoryBandwidthLine(virResctrlInfoPtr resctrl, + virResctrlAllocPtr alloc, + char *line) +{ + char **mbs = NULL; + char *tmp = NULL; + size_t nmbs = 0; + size_t i; + int ret = -1; + + /* For no reason there can be spaces */ + virSkipSpaces((const char **) &line); + + if (STRNEQLEN(line, "MB", 2)) + return 0; + + if (!resctrl || !resctrl->membw_info || + !resctrl->membw_info->min_bandwidth || + !resctrl->membw_info->bandwidth_granularity) { + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s", + _("Missing or inconsistent resctrl info for " + "memory bandwidth allocation"));
I assume a return -1 is in order here. Missed this earlier, but the Coverity checker found it.
+ } + + if (!alloc->mem_bw) { + if (VIR_ALLOC(alloc->mem_bw) < 0) + return -1; + } + + tmp = strchr(line, ':'); + if (!tmp) + return 0; + tmp++; + + mbs = virStringSplitCount(tmp, ";", 0, &nmbs); + if (nmbs == 0) + return 0;
As strange as this is - the above 2 aren't necessary given the next for loop. Keeping them cause Coverity to whine that virStringSplitCount can return allocated memory which is then leaked. It's a false positive, but avoidable.
+ + for (i = 0; i < nmbs; i++) { + if (virResctrlAllocParseProcessMemoryBandwidth(resctrl, alloc, mbs[i]) < 0) + goto cleanup; + } + ret = 0; + cleanup: + virStringListFree(mbs); + return ret; +} + +
[...] I'll adjust in my branch before pushing. John