On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:12:32PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
Some settings may be confusing and in case users use numad placement in combination with static placement we could warn them as it might not be wanted (but it's not forbidden).
Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254402
Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@redhat.com> --- src/qemu/qemu_process.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c index 0aab01fd4d50..c012b6efcab6 100644 --- a/src/qemu/qemu_process.c +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_process.c @@ -2304,6 +2304,76 @@ qemuProcessSetLinkStates(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, }
+static int +qemuProcessCheckCpusMemsAlignment(virQEMUDriverPtr driver, + virDomainObjPtr vm, + virBitmapPtr cpumask, + const char *mem_mask) +{ + int ret = -1; + int hostnodes = 0; + char *cpumask_str = NULL; + char *tmpmask_str = NULL; + char *mem_cpus_str = NULL; + virCapsPtr caps = NULL; + virBitmapPtr tmpmask = NULL; + virBitmapPtr mem_cpus = NULL; + virBitmapPtr mem_nodes = NULL; + virDomainNumatuneMemMode mem_mode; + + if (virDomainNumatuneGetMode(vm->def->numa, -1, &mem_mode) != 0) + return 0; + + if (mem_mode != VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_STRICT) + return 0; + + if (!mem_mask || !cpumask) + return 0; + + if (!(caps = virQEMUDriverGetCapabilities(driver, false))) + goto cleanup; + + if (!(tmpmask = virBitmapNewCopy(cpumask))) + goto cleanup; + + if ((hostnodes = virNumaGetMaxNode()) < 0) + goto cleanup; + + if (virBitmapParse(mem_mask, &mem_nodes, hostnodes) < 0) + goto cleanup; + + if (!(mem_cpus = virCapabilitiesGetCpusForNodemask(caps, mem_nodes))) + goto cleanup; + + virBitmapSubtract(tmpmask, mem_cpus); + if (!virBitmapIsAllClear(tmpmask)) { + if (!(cpumask_str = virBitmapFormat(cpumask))) + goto cleanup; + + if (!(tmpmask_str = virBitmapFormat(tmpmask))) + goto cleanup; + + if (!(mem_cpus_str = virBitmapFormat(mem_cpus))) + goto cleanup; + + VIR_WARN("CPUs '%s' in cpumask '%s' might not have access to any NUMA " + "node in memory's nodeset '%s' which consists of CPUs: '%s'.", + tmpmask_str, cpumask_str, mem_mask, mem_cpus_str);
We've had a general principle that we don't use VIR_WARN for this kind of thing, because libvirtd logs are genrally invisible to the person who is making the mistake. Meanwhile if this is intentional, we're spamming the logs for a situation the user explicitly chose. So NACK to the entire patch, as it doesn't do anything useful IMHO. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|