On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 20:27:50 +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
Recently, bhyve started supporting specifying guest CPU topology. It looks this way:
bhyve -c cpus=C,sockets=S,cores=C,threads=T ...
The old behaviour with bhyve -c C, where C is a number of vCPUs, is still supported.
So if we have CPU topology in the domain XML, use the new syntax, otherwise keeps the old behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Roman Bogorodskiy <bogorodskiy@gmail.com> --- src/bhyve/bhyve_capabilities.c | 7 +++-- src/bhyve/bhyve_capabilities.h | 1 + src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c | 17 +++++++++++- .../bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.args | 9 +++++++ .../bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.ldargs | 3 +++ .../bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.xml | 26 +++++++++++++++++++ tests/bhyvexml2argvtest.c | 7 ++++- 7 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tests/bhyvexml2argvdata/bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.args create mode 100644 tests/bhyvexml2argvdata/bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.ldargs create mode 100644 tests/bhyvexml2argvdata/bhyvexml2argv-cputopology.xml
[...]
diff --git a/src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c b/src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c index e3f7ded7db..b319518520 100644 --- a/src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c +++ b/src/bhyve/bhyve_command.c @@ -467,7 +467,22 @@ virBhyveProcessBuildBhyveCmd(virConnectPtr conn,
/* CPUs */ virCommandAddArg(cmd, "-c"); - virCommandAddArgFormat(cmd, "%d", virDomainDefGetVcpus(def)); + if (def->cpu && def->cpu->sockets) { + if ((bhyveDriverGetCaps(conn) & BHYVE_CAP_CPUTOPOLOGY) != 0) { + virCommandAddArgFormat(cmd, "cpus=%d,sockets=%d,cores=%d,threads=%d", + virDomainDefGetVcpus(def), + def->cpu->sockets, + def->cpu->cores, + def->cpu->threads);
Note that libvirt XML->def conversion does not validate that def->nvcpus equals to def->cpu->sockets * def->cpu->cores * def->cpu->threads. This is a historic artefact since qemu did not do it either. They started doing it just recently. It might be worth adding that check to be sure in the future.
+ } else { + virReportError(VIR_ERR_CONFIG_UNSUPPORTED, "%s", + _("Installed bhyve binary does not support " + "defining CPU topology")); + goto error; + }
The rest looks good to me, so ACK if you don't think the check for the topology<->vcpu count is important enough.