Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v3 1/4] numa: describe siblings distances within cells

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:31:50PM +0200, Wim ten Have wrote: >On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:36:58 +0200 >Martin Kletzander <mkletzan(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 04:02:38PM +0200, Wim Ten Have wrote: >> >From: Wim ten Have <wim.ten.have(a)oracle.com&gt; >> > > >> I haven't seen the previous versions, so sorry if I point out something >> that got changed already. > >There was a v1 and v2 cycle by Jim and Daniel 2 month back. >Due to personal issues whole got delayed at my end where i am >catching up. > >> >Add libvirtd NUMA cell domain administration functionality to >> >describe underlying cell id sibling distances in full fashion >> >when configuring HVM guests. >> > >> >[below is an example of a 4 node setup] >> > >> > <cpu> >> > <numa> >> > <cell id='0' cpus='0' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'> >> > <distances> >> > <sibling id='0' value='10'/> >> > <sibling id='1' value='21'/> >> > <sibling id='2' value='31'/> >> > <sibling id='3' value='41'/> >> > </distances> >> > </cell> >> > <cell id='1' cpus='1' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'> >> > <distances> >> > <sibling id='0' value='21'/> >> > <sibling id='1' value='10'/> >> > <sibling id='2' value='31'/> >> > <sibling id='3' value='41'/> >> > </distances> >> > </cell> >> > <cell id='2' cpus='2' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'> >> > <distances> >> > <sibling id='0' value='31'/> >> > <sibling id='1' value='21'/> >> > <sibling id='2' value='10'/> >> > <sibling id='3' value='21'/> >> > </distances> >> > <cell id='3' cpus='3' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'> >> > <distances> >> > <sibling id='0' value='41'/> >> > <sibling id='1' value='31'/> >> > <sibling id='2' value='21'/> >> > <sibling id='3' value='10'/> >> > </distances> >> > </cell> >> > </numa> >> > </cpu> >> > >> >> Are all those required? I don't see the point in requiring duplicate >> values. > >Sorry I am not sure I understand what you mean by "duplicate values" >here. Can you elaborate? > Sure. For simplicity let's assume 2 cells: <cell id='0' cpus='0' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'> <distances> <sibling id='0' value='10'/> <sibling id='1' value='21'/> </distances> </cell> <cell id='1' cpus='1' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'> <distances> <sibling id='0' value='21'/> <!-- This should not be needed --> <sibling id='1' value='10'/> </distances> </cell>

>> >Changes under this commit concern all those that require adding >> >the valid data structures, virDomainNuma* functional routines and the >> >XML doc schema enhancements to enforce appropriate administration. >> >> I don't understand the point of this paragraph. > >Let me rephrase this paragraph in future version. > >> >These changes are accompanied with topic related documentation under >> >docs/formatdomain.html within the "CPU model and topology" extending the >> >"Guest NUMA topology" paragraph. >> >> This can be seen from the patch. > >Agree, so I'll address this in future version too. > >> >For terminology we refer to sockets as "nodes" where access to each >> >others' distinct resources such as memory make them "siblings" with a >> >designated "distance" between them. A specific design is described under >> >the ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface Specification) >> >within the chapter explaining the system's SLIT (System Locality Distance >> >Information Table). >> >> The above paragraph is also being added in the docs. > >True so I'll scratch this part of the commit message. > >> >These patches extend core libvirt's XML description of a virtual machine's >> >hardware to include NUMA distance information for sibling nodes, which >> >is then passed to Xen guests via libxl. Recently qemu landed support for >> >constructing the SLIT since commit 0f203430dd ("numa: Allow setting NUMA >> >distance for different NUMA nodes"), hence these core libvirt extensions >> >can also help other drivers in supporting this feature. >> >> This is not true, libxl changes are in separate patch. > >Like the previous comments and replies, I'll rearrange the commit >messages and rephrase them to be more specific to the patch. > >> There's a lot of copy-paste from the cover-letter... > >There is indeed room for improvement. > >> >These changes alter the docs/schemas/cputypes.rng enforcing >> >domain administration to follow the syntax below per numa cell id. >> > >> >These changes also alter docs/schemas/basictypes.rng to add >> >"numaDistanceValue" which is an "unsignedInt" with a minimum value >> >of 10 as 0-9 are reserved values and can not be used as System >> >Locality Distance Information Table data. >> > >> >Signed-off-by: Wim ten Have <wim.ten.have(a)oracle.com&gt; >> >--- >> >Changes on v1: >> >- Add changes to docs/formatdomain.html.in describing schema update. >> >Changes on v2: >> >- Automatically apply distance symmetry maintaining cell <-> sibling. >> >- Check for maximum '255' on numaDistanceValue. >> >- Automatically complete empty distance ranges. >> >- Check that sibling_id's are in range with cell identifiers. >> >- Allow non-contiguous ranges, starting from any node id. >> >- Respect parameters as ATTRIBUTE_NONNULL fix functions and callers. >> >- Add and apply topoly for LOCAL_DISTANCE=10 and REMOTE_DISTANCE=20. >> >--- >> > docs/formatdomain.html.in | 70 +++++++++- >> > docs/schemas/basictypes.rng | 9 ++ >> > docs/schemas/cputypes.rng | 18 +++ >> > src/conf/cpu_conf.c | 2 +- >> > src/conf/numa_conf.c | 323 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> > src/conf/numa_conf.h | 25 +++- >> > src/libvirt_private.syms | 6 + >> > 7 files changed, 444 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> > >> >diff --git a/docs/formatdomain.html.in b/docs/formatdomain.html.in >> >index 8ca7637..19a2ac7 100644 >> >--- a/docs/formatdomain.html.in >> >+++ b/docs/formatdomain.html.in >> >@@ -1529,7 +1529,75 @@ >> > </p> >> > >> > <p> >> >- This guest NUMA specification is currently available only for QEMU/KVM. >> >+ This guest NUMA specification is currently available only for >> >+ QEMU/KVM and Xen. Whereas Xen driver also allows for a distinct >> >+ description of NUMA arranged <code>sibling</code> <code>cell</code> >> >+ <code>distances</code> <span class="since">Since 3.6.0</span>. >> >+ </p> >> >+ >> >+ <p> >> >+ Under NUMA h/w architecture, distinct resources such as memory >> >+ create a designated distance between <code>cell</code> and >> >+ <code>siblings</code> that now can be described with the help of >> >+ <code>distances</code>. A detailed describtion can be found within >> >+ the ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface Specification) >> >+ within the chapter explaining the system's SLIT (System Locality >> >+ Distance Information Table). >> >+ </p> >> >+ >> >+<pre> >> >+... >> >+&lt;cpu&gt; >> >+ ... >> >+ &lt;numa&gt; >> >+ &lt;cell id='0' cpus='0,4-7' memory='512000' unit='KiB'&gt; >> >+ &lt;distances&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='0' value='10'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='1' value='21'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='2' value='31'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='3' value='41'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;/distances&gt; >> >+ &lt;/cell&gt; >> >+ &lt;cell id='1' cpus='1,8-10,12-15' memory='512000' unit='KiB' memAccess='shared'&gt; >> >+ &lt;distances&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='0' value='21'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='1' value='10'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='2' value='21'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='3' value='31'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;/distances&gt; >> >+ &lt;/cell&gt; >> >+ &lt;cell id='2' cpus='2,11' memory='512000' unit='KiB' memAccess='shared'&gt; >> >+ &lt;distances&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='0' value='31'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='1' value='21'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='2' value='10'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='3' value='21'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;/distances&gt; >> >+ &lt;/cell&gt; >> >+ &lt;cell id='3' cpus='3' memory='512000' unit='KiB'&gt; >> >+ &lt;distances&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='0' value='41'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='1' value='31'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='2' value='21'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;sibling id='3' value='10'/&gt; >> >+ &lt;/distances&gt; >> >+ &lt;/cell&gt; >> >+ &lt;/numa&gt; >> >+ ... >> >+&lt;/cpu&gt; >> >+...</pre> >> >+ >> >+ <p> >> >+ Under Xen driver, if no <code>distances</code> are given to describe >> >+ the SLIT data between different cells, it will default to a scheme >> >+ using 10 for local and 20 for remote distances. Made defaults >> >+ for guest OS when no SLIT is specified. >> >+ <br/>See include/linux/topology.h under >> >+ <pre> >> >+ /* Conform to ACPI 2.0 SLIT distance definitions */ >> >+ #define LOCAL_DISTANCE 10 >> >+ #define REMOTE_DISTANCE 20 >> >+ </pre> > >> I wouldn't include the code in the <pre>, I don't see the point for that. > >Let me check. > >> > </p> >> > >> > <h3><a id="elementsEvents">Events configuration</a></h3> >> >diff --git a/docs/schemas/basictypes.rng b/docs/schemas/basictypes.rng >> >index 1ea667c..bbef282 100644 >> >--- a/docs/schemas/basictypes.rng >> >+++ b/docs/schemas/basictypes.rng >> >@@ -77,6 +77,15 @@ >> > </choice> >> > </define> >> > >> >+ <define name="numaDistanceValue"> >> >+ <choice> >> >+ <data type="unsignedInt"> >> >+ <param name="minInclusive">10</param> >> >+ <param name="maxInclusive">255</param> >> >+ </data> >> >+ </choice> > >> Why <choice>? > >Good point! ... will fix this. > >> >+ </define> >> >+ >> > <define name="pciaddress"> >> > <optional> >> > <attribute name="domain"> >> >diff --git a/docs/schemas/cputypes.rng b/docs/schemas/cputypes.rng >> >index 3eef16a..c45b6df 100644 >> >--- a/docs/schemas/cputypes.rng >> >+++ b/docs/schemas/cputypes.rng >> >@@ -129,6 +129,24 @@ >> > </choice> >> > </attribute> >> > </optional> >> >+ <optional> >> >+ <element name="distances"> >> >+ <oneOrMore> >> >+ <ref name="numaDistance"/> >> >+ </oneOrMore> >> >+ </element> >> >+ </optional> >> >+ </element> >> >+ </define> >> >+ >> >+ <define name="numaDistance"> >> >+ <element name="sibling"> >> >+ <attribute name="id"> >> >+ <ref name="unsignedInt"/> >> >+ </attribute> >> >+ <attribute name="value"> >> >+ <ref name="numaDistanceValue"/> >> >+ </attribute> >> > </element> >> > </define> >> > >> >diff --git a/src/conf/cpu_conf.c b/src/conf/cpu_conf.c >> >index c21d11d..8d804a1 100644 >> >--- a/src/conf/cpu_conf.c >> >+++ b/src/conf/cpu_conf.c >> >@@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ virCPUDefFormatBufFull(virBufferPtr buf, >> > if (virCPUDefFormatBuf(&childrenBuf, def, updateCPU) < 0) >> > goto cleanup; >> > >> >- if (virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(&childrenBuf, numa) < 0) >> >+ if (virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML(&childrenBuf, numa) < 0) >> > goto cleanup; > >> Changing function names should be separate patch. Why is this >> changed anyway? > >I renamed virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat() to virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML() >to make it consistent with already existing function names like > virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML() > Then put it in a separate patch. >> > if (virBufferCheckError(&attributeBuf) < 0 || >> >diff --git a/src/conf/numa_conf.c b/src/conf/numa_conf.c >> >index bfd3703..fb2a74c 100644 >> >--- a/src/conf/numa_conf.c >> >+++ b/src/conf/numa_conf.c >> >@@ -29,6 +29,13 @@ >> > #include "virnuma.h" >> > #include "virstring.h" >> > >> >+/* >> >+ * Distance definitions defined Conform ACPI 2.0 SLIT. >> >+ * See include/linux/topology.h >> >+ */ >> >+#define LOCAL_DISTANCE 10 >> >+#define REMOTE_DISTANCE 20 >> >+ >> > #define VIR_FROM_THIS VIR_FROM_DOMAIN >> > >> > VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainNumatuneMemMode, >> >@@ -48,6 +55,8 @@ VIR_ENUM_IMPL(virDomainMemoryAccess, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_ACCESS_LAST, >> > "shared", >> > "private") >> > >> >+typedef struct _virDomainNumaDistance virDomainNumaDistance; >> >+typedef virDomainNumaDistance *virDomainNumaDistancePtr; >> > >> > typedef struct _virDomainNumaNode virDomainNumaNode; >> > typedef virDomainNumaNode *virDomainNumaNodePtr; >> >@@ -66,6 +75,12 @@ struct _virDomainNuma { >> > virBitmapPtr nodeset; /* host memory nodes where this guest node resides */ >> > virDomainNumatuneMemMode mode; /* memory mode selection */ >> > virDomainMemoryAccess memAccess; /* shared memory access configuration */ >> >+ >> >+ struct _virDomainNumaDistance { >> >+ unsigned int value; /* locality value for node i->j or j->i */ >> >+ unsigned int cellid; >> >+ } *distances; /* remote node distances */ >> >+ size_t ndistances; >> > } *mem_nodes; /* guest node configuration */ >> > size_t nmem_nodes; >> > >> >@@ -686,6 +701,128 @@ virDomainNumatuneNodesetIsAvailable(virDomainNumaPtr numatune, >> > } >> > >> > >> >+static int >> >+virDomainNumaDefNodeDistanceParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def, >> >+ xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt, >> >+ unsigned int cur_cell) >> >+{ >> >+ int ret = -1; >> >+ int sibling; >> >+ char *tmp = NULL; >> >+ xmlNodePtr *nodes = NULL; >> >+ size_t i, ndistances = def->nmem_nodes; >> >+ >> >+ if (!ndistances) >> >+ return 0; >> >+ >> >+ if (!virXPathNode("./distances[1]/sibling", ctxt)) >> >+ return 0; >> >+ >> >+ if ((sibling = virXPathNodeSet("./distances[1]/sibling", ctxt, &nodes)) <= 0) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s", >> >+ _("NUMA distances defined without siblings")); >> >+ goto cleanup; >> >+ } >> >+ > >> Aren't these two blocks of code checking the same thing? > >They are not checking the same thing. The first one checks if there >are distances under the cell description at all, where the second test >ensures that distances descibing the cell actually hold siblings. > Sure, but if you remove the first block the code will work the same way, thus it's pointless IMHO. >Let me add a comment similar to the one in virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(). > >> >+ for (i = 0; i < sibling; i++) { >> >+ virDomainNumaDistancePtr ldist, rdist; >> >+ unsigned int sibling_id, sibling_value; >> >+ >> >+ /* siblings are in order of parsing or explicitly numbered */ >> >+ if ((tmp = virXMLPropString(nodes[i], "id"))) { >> >+ if (virStrToLong_uip(tmp, NULL, 10, &sibling_id) < 0) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, >> >+ _("Invalid 'id' attribute in NUMA distances for sibling: '%s'"), >> >+ tmp); >> >+ goto cleanup; >> >+ } >> >+ } >> >+ VIR_FREE(tmp); >> >+ >> >+ if (sibling_id >= ndistances) { > >> Isn't sibling_id uninitialized in case there is no 'id' specified? > >You are right ... I'll fix this. > >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, >> >+ _("No cell administration for 'sibling_id %d' under NUMA cell '%d' "), >> >+ sibling_id, cur_cell); >> >+ goto cleanup; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ /* We need a locality value. Check and correct >> >+ * distance to local and distance to remote node. >> >+ */ >> >+ if (!(tmp = virXMLPropString(nodes[i], "value"))) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, >> >+ _("Missing 'value' attribute in NUMA distances for sibling id: '%d'"), >> >+ sibling_id); >> >+ goto cleanup; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ /* It needs to be applicable */ >> >+ if (virStrToLong_uip(tmp, NULL, 10, &sibling_value) < 0) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, >> >+ _("Invalid 'value' attribute in NUMA distances for sibling id: '%d'"), >> >+ sibling_id); >> >+ goto cleanup; >> >+ } >> >+ VIR_FREE(tmp); >> >+ >> >+ ldist = def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].distances; >> >+ if (!ldist) { >> >+ if (def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].ndistances) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, >> >+ _("Erratic 'ndistances' set in NUMA distances for sibling id: '%d'"), >> >+ cur_cell); >> >+ goto cleanup; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ if (VIR_ALLOC_N(ldist, ndistances) < 0) >> >+ goto cleanup; >> >+ >> >+ if (!ldist[cur_cell].value) >> >+ ldist[cur_cell].value = LOCAL_DISTANCE; >> >+ ldist[cur_cell].cellid = cur_cell; >> >+ def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].ndistances = ndistances; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ ldist[sibling_id].cellid = sibling_id; >> >+ ldist[sibling_id].value = sibling_value; > >> I don't see the check for 10 <= sibling_value <= 255 anywhere. > >That is already taken care of by the schema validation. > Which can be skipped. You cannot rely on that. >> >+ def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].distances = ldist; >> >+ >> >+ rdist = def->mem_nodes[sibling_id].distances; >> >+ if (!rdist) { >> >+ if (def->mem_nodes[sibling_id].ndistances) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, >> >+ _("Erratic 'ndistances' set in NUMA distances for sibling id: '%d'"), >> >+ sibling_id); >> >+ goto cleanup; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ if (VIR_ALLOC_N(rdist, ndistances) < 0) >> >+ goto cleanup; >> >+ >> >+ if (!rdist[sibling_id].value) >> >+ rdist[sibling_id].value = LOCAL_DISTANCE; >> >+ rdist[sibling_id].cellid = sibling_id; >> >+ def->mem_nodes[sibling_id].ndistances = ndistances; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ rdist[cur_cell].cellid = cur_cell; >> >+ rdist[cur_cell].value = sibling_value; >> >+ def->mem_nodes[sibling_id].distances = rdist; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ ret = 0; >> >+ >> >+ cleanup: >> >+ if (ret) { >> >+ for (i = 0; i < ndistances; i++) >> >+ VIR_FREE(def->mem_nodes[i].distances); >> >+ } >> >+ VIR_FREE(nodes); >> >+ VIR_FREE(tmp); >> >+ >> >+ return ret; >> >+} >> >+ >> > int >> > virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def, >> > xmlXPathContextPtr ctxt) >> >@@ -694,7 +831,7 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def, >> > xmlNodePtr oldNode = ctxt->node; >> > char *tmp = NULL; >> > int n; >> >- size_t i; >> >+ size_t i, j; >> > int ret = -1; >> > >> > /* check if NUMA definition is present */ >> >@@ -712,7 +849,6 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def, >> > def->nmem_nodes = n; >> > >> > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) { >> >- size_t j; >> > int rc; >> > unsigned int cur_cell = i; >> > >> >@@ -788,6 +924,10 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def, >> > def->mem_nodes[cur_cell].memAccess = rc; >> > VIR_FREE(tmp); >> > } >> >+ >> >+ /* Parse NUMA distances info */ >> >+ if (virDomainNumaDefNodeDistanceParseXML(def, ctxt, cur_cell) < 0) >> >+ goto cleanup; >> > } >> > >> > ret = 0; >> >@@ -801,8 +941,8 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML(virDomainNumaPtr def, >> > >> > >> > int >> >-virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(virBufferPtr buf, >> >- virDomainNumaPtr def) >> >+virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML(virBufferPtr buf, >> >+ virDomainNumaPtr def) > >> Same here with the rename. > >To make it consistent with already existing function names like > virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML() > >> > { >> > virDomainMemoryAccess memAccess; >> > char *cpustr; >> >@@ -815,6 +955,8 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(virBufferPtr buf, >> > virBufferAddLit(buf, "<numa>\n"); >> > virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2); >> > for (i = 0; i < ncells; i++) { >> >+ int ndistances; >> >+ >> > memAccess = virDomainNumaGetNodeMemoryAccessMode(def, i); >> > >> > if (!(cpustr = virBitmapFormat(virDomainNumaGetNodeCpumask(def, i)))) >> >@@ -829,7 +971,32 @@ virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat(virBufferPtr buf, >> > if (memAccess) >> > virBufferAsprintf(buf, " memAccess='%s'", >> > virDomainMemoryAccessTypeToString(memAccess)); >> >- virBufferAddLit(buf, "/>\n"); >> >+ >> >+ ndistances = def->mem_nodes[i].ndistances; >> >+ if (!ndistances) { >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "/>\n"); >> >+ } else { >> >+ size_t j; >> >+ virDomainNumaDistancePtr distances = def->mem_nodes[i].distances; >> >+ >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, ">\n"); >> >+ virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2); >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "<distances>\n"); >> >+ virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, 2); >> >+ for (j = 0; j < ndistances; j++) { >> >+ if (distances[j].value) { >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "<sibling"); >> >+ virBufferAsprintf(buf, " id='%d'", distances[j].cellid); >> >+ virBufferAsprintf(buf, " value='%d'", distances[j].value); >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "/>\n"); >> >+ } >> >+ } >> >+ virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2); >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "</distances>\n"); >> >+ virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2); >> >+ virBufferAddLit(buf, "</cell>\n"); >> >+ } >> >+ >> > VIR_FREE(cpustr); >> > } >> > virBufferAdjustIndent(buf, -2); >> >@@ -922,13 +1089,146 @@ virDomainNumaCheckABIStability(virDomainNumaPtr src, >> > size_t >> > virDomainNumaGetNodeCount(virDomainNumaPtr numa) >> > { >> >- if (!numa) >> >+ if (!numa || !numa->mem_nodes) > >> Just "why?" ^^ > >Overly cautious. ... Will revert! > >> > return 0; >> > >> > return numa->nmem_nodes; >> > } >> > >> > >> >+size_t >> >+virDomainNumaSetNodeCount(virDomainNumaPtr numa, size_t nmem_nodes) >> >+{ >> >+ if (!nmem_nodes) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s", >> >+ _("Cannot set an empty nmem_nodes set")); >> >+ return 0; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ if (numa->mem_nodes) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, "%s", >> >+ _("Cannot alter an existing nmem_nodes set")); >> >+ return 0; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ if (VIR_ALLOC_N(numa->mem_nodes, nmem_nodes) < 0) >> >+ return 0; >> >+ >> >+ numa->nmem_nodes = nmem_nodes; >> >+ >> >+ return numa->nmem_nodes; >> >+} >> >+ > >> Are you introducing a function that is not used anywhere as a part of a >> patch that does something else as well? I can't see the point of this >> function really... It looks like you are guarding against user input >> which doesn't really makes sense here for me. Maybe I need to see >> where it is used but it's not in this patch... > >It is used in [PATCH v3 3/4] by xenParseXLVnuma(). > Then introduce it either there or in its own patch. Not in a patch that is parsing XML. >> >+size_t >> >+virDomainNumaGetNodeDistance(virDomainNumaPtr numa, >> >+ size_t node, >> >+ size_t cellid) >> >+{ >> >+ virDomainNumaDistancePtr distances = NULL; >> >+ >> >+ if (node < numa->nmem_nodes) >> >+ distances = numa->mem_nodes[node].distances; >> >+ >> >+ /* >> >+ * Present the configured distance value. If >> >+ * out of range or not available set the platform >> >+ * defined default for local and remote nodes. >> >+ */ >> >+ if (!distances || >> >+ !distances[cellid].value || >> >+ !numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances) >> >+ return (node == cellid) ? \ >> >+ LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE; >> >+ >> >+ return distances[cellid].value; >> >+} >> >+ >> >+ >> >+int >> >+virDomainNumaSetNodeDistance(virDomainNumaPtr numa, >> >+ size_t node, >> >+ size_t cellid, >> >+ unsigned int value) >> >+{ >> >+ virDomainNumaDistancePtr distances; >> >+ >> >+ if (node >= numa->nmem_nodes) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR, >> >+ _("Argument 'node' %zu outranges defined number " >> >+ "of NUMA nodes"), node); >> >+ return -1; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ distances = numa->mem_nodes[node].distances; >> >+ if (!distances || >> >+ cellid >= numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_XML_ERROR, "%s", >> >+ _("Arguments under memnode element do not " >> >+ "correspond with existing guest's NUMA cell")); >> >+ return -1; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ /* >> >+ * Advanced Configuration and Power Interface >> >+ * Specification version 6.1. Chapter 5.2.17 >> >+ * System Locality Distance Information Table >> >+ * ... Distance values of 0-9 are reserved. >> >+ */ >> >+ if (value < LOCAL_DISTANCE) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, >> >+ _("Distance value of %d is in 0-9 reserved range"), >> >+ value); >> >+ return -1; >> >+ } >> >+ >> >+ if (value > LOCAL_DISTANCE && node == cellid) { >> >+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, >> >+ _("Distance value %d under node %zu does " >> >+ "not meet LOCAL_DISTANCE of 10"), > >> Maybe you meant REMOTE_DISTANCE here? > >LOCAL_DISTANCE is meant here because the (node == cellid) expression >tests for the node itself. Maybe moving (node == cellid) to the front >makes it more clear. > Oh, I missed the "node == cellid" part, sorry for that. In that case why parse the value when it can only be 10? >> If there were tests it would be visible. Similarly if this function >> was used anywhere in this patch. > >I am in agreement on adding more tests and specifically one for this scenario. > >> I don't feel like reading further, other may continue the review. > >Thanks for your review comments so far. > >> Have a nice day, >> Martin > >Regards, >- Wim.