On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 20:34:55 +0800, Luyao Huang wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176020
We had a check for the vcpu count total number in <numa> before, however this check is not good enough. There are some examples:
1. one of cpu id is out of maxvcpus, can set success(cpu count = 5 < 10):
<vcpu placement='static'>10</vcpu> <cell id='0' cpus='0-3,100' memory='512000' unit='KiB'/>
2. use the same cpu in 2 cell, can set success(cpu count = 8 < 10): <vcpu placement='static'>10</vcpu> <cell id='0' cpus='0-3' memory='512000' unit='KiB'/> <cell id='1' cpus='0-3' memory='512000' unit='KiB'/>
3. use the same cpu in 2 cell, cannot set success(cpu count = 11 > 10): <vcpu placement='static'>10</vcpu> <cell id='0' cpus='0-6' memory='512000' unit='KiB'/> <cell id='1' cpus='0-3' memory='512000' unit='KiB'/>
Use a new check for numa cpus, check if use a cpu exceeds maxvcpus and if duplicate use one cpu in more than one cell.
Signed-off-by: Luyao Huang <lhuang@redhat.com> --- src/conf/domain_conf.c | 6 +----- src/conf/numa_conf.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- src/conf/numa_conf.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c index 479b4c2..a4a2abb 100644 --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c @@ -14234,12 +14234,8 @@ virDomainDefParseXML(xmlDocPtr xml, if (virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(def->numa, ctxt) < 0) goto error;
- if (virDomainNumaGetCPUCountTotal(def->numa) > def->maxvcpus) { - virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s", - _("Number of CPUs in <numa> exceeds the" - " <vcpu> count")); + if (virDomainNumaCheckCPU(def->numa, def->maxvcpus) < 0)
This check could be placed after all the numa nodes are parsed and thus would function correctly when combined with ...
goto error; - }
if (virDomainNumatuneParseXML(def->numa, def->placement_mode == diff --git a/src/conf/numa_conf.c b/src/conf/numa_conf.c index 7ad3f66..2b18225 100644 --- a/src/conf/numa_conf.c +++ b/src/conf/numa_conf.c @@ -805,16 +805,39 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(virBufferPtr buf, }
-unsigned int -virDomainNumaGetCPUCountTotal(virDomainNumaPtr numa) +int +virDomainNumaCheckCPU(virDomainNumaPtr numa, + unsigned short maxvcpus) { - size_t i; - unsigned int ret = 0; + size_t i,j;
- for (i = 0; i < numa->nmem_nodes; i++) - ret += virBitmapCountBits(virDomainNumaGetNodeCpumask(numa, i)); + for (i = 0; i < numa->nmem_nodes; i++) { + virBitmapPtr nodeset = NULL; + ssize_t bit = -1; + + nodeset = virDomainNumaGetNodeCpumask(numa, i); + for (j = 0; j < i; j++) { + if (virBitmapOverlaps(virDomainNumaGetNodeCpumask(numa, j), + nodeset)) {
... this check.
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, + _("Cannot binding one vCPU in 2 NUMA cell" + " %zu and %zu"), i, j);
This error message doesn't look very explanatory. Perhaps "NUMA cells %zu and %zu have overlapping vCPU ids".
+ return -1; + } + }
- return ret; + while ((bit = virBitmapNextSetBit(nodeset, bit)) >= 0) { + if (bit <= maxvcpus-1)
Incorrect spacing around the '-' operator.
+ continue;
This construct more-or-less reimplements virBitmapLastSetBit()
+ + virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, + _("vcpu '%zu' in <numa> cell '%zu' exceeds the maxvcpus"), + bit, i);
This check looks awkward. I'd go with the virDomainNumaGetCPUCountTotal and add the check for overlapping indexes.
+ return -1; + } + } + + return 0; }
Peter