The function returns true/false depending on distance
configuration being present in the domain XML.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com>
There's no point in checking if numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances
is set if we check for numa->mem_nodes[node].distances. However,
it makes sense to check if the sibling node (@cellid) caller
passed falls within boundaries.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: John Ferlan <jferlan@redhat.com>
Add support for describing NUMA distances in a domain's <numa> <cell>
XML description.
Below is an example of a 4 node setup:
<cpu>
<numa>
<cell id='0' cpus='0-3' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
<distances>
<sibling id='0' value='10'/>
<sibling id='1' value='21'/>
<sibling id='2' value='31'/>
<sibling id='3' value='21'/>
</distances>
</cell>
<cell id='1' cpus='4-7' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
<distances>
<sibling id='0' value='21'/>
<sibling id='1' value='10'/>
<sibling id='2' value='21'/>
<sibling id='3' value='31'/>
</distances>
</cell>
<cell id='2' cpus='8-11' 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='12-15' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'>
<distances>
<sibling id='0' value='21'/>
<sibling id='1' value='31'/>
<sibling id='2' value='21'/>
<sibling id='3' value='10'/>
</distances>
</cell>
</numa>
</cpu>
A <cell> defines a NUMA node. <distances> describes the NUMA distance
from the <cell> to the other NUMA nodes (the <sibling>s). For example,
in above XML description, the distance between NUMA node0 <cell id='0'
...> and NUMA node2 <sibling id='2' ...> is 31.
Valid distance values are '10 <= value <= 255'. A distance value of 10
represents the distance to the node itself. A distance value of 20
represents the default value for remote nodes but other values are
possible depending on the physical topology of the system.
When distances are not fully described, any missing sibling distance
values will default to 10 for local nodes and 20 for remote nodes.
If distance is given for A -> B, then we default B -> A to the same
value instead of 20.
Signed-off-by: Wim ten Have <wim.ten.have@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com>
Rename virDomainNumaDefCPUFormat to virDomainNumaDefCPUFormatXML,
matching its peer virDomainNumaDefCPUParseXML and the general
vir*{Format,Parse}XML conventions.
Signed-off-by: Wim ten Have <wim.ten.have@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@suse.com>
Rename to avoid duplicate code. Because virDomainMemoryAccess will be
used in memorybacking for setting default behaviour.
NOTE: The enum cannot be moved to qemu/domain_conf because of headers
dependency
While trying to build with -Os I've encountered some build
failures.
util/vircommand.c: In function 'virCommandAddEnvFormat':
util/vircommand.c:1257:1: error: inlining failed in call to 'virCommandAddEnv': call is unlikely and code size would grow [-Werror=inline]
virCommandAddEnv(virCommandPtr cmd, char *env)
^
util/vircommand.c:1308:5: error: called from here [-Werror=inline]
virCommandAddEnv(cmd, env);
^
This function is big enough for the compiler to be not inlined.
This is the error message I'm seeing:
Then virDomainNumatuneNodeSpecified is exported and called from
other places. It shouldn't be inlined then.
In file included from network/bridge_driver_platform.h:30:0,
from network/bridge_driver_platform.c:26:
network/bridge_driver_linux.c: In function 'networkRemoveRoutingFirewallRules':
./conf/network_conf.h:350:1: error: inlining failed in call to 'virNetworkDefForwardIf.constprop': call is unlikely and code size would grow [-Werror=inline]
virNetworkDefForwardIf(const virNetworkDef *def, size_t n)
^
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260846
Introduced by 8fedbbdb, if we parse an unordered NUMA cell, will
get a segfault. This is because of a check for overlapping @cpus
sets we have there. However, since the array to hold guest NUMA
cells is allocated upfront and therefore it contains all zeros,
an out of order cell will break our assumption that cell IDs have
increasing character. At this point we try to access yet NULL
bitmap and therefore segfault.
Signed-off-by: Luyao Huang <lhuang@redhat.com>
This function should return the greatest CPU number set in
/domain/cpu/numa/cell/@cpus. The idea is that we should compare
the returned value against /domain/vcpu value. Yes, there exist
users who think the following is a good idea:
<vcpu placement='static'>4</vcpu>
<cpu mode='host-model'>
<model fallback='allow'/>
<numa>
<cell id='0' cpus='0-1' memory='1048576' unit='KiB'/>
<cell id='1' cpus='9-10' memory='2097152' unit='KiB'/>
</numa>
</cpu>
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
So far, we are not reporting if numatune was even defined. The
value of zero is blindly returned (which maps onto
VIR_DOMAIN_NUMATUNE_MEM_STRICT). Unfortunately, we are making
decisions based on this value. Instead, we should not only return
the correct value, but report to the caller if the value is valid
at all.
For better viewing of this patch use '-w'.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
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'/>
Add a check for numa cpus, check if duplicate use one cpu in more
than one cell.
Signed-off-by: Luyao Huang <lhuang@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
This patch adds checks for empty bitmaps right after the calls of
virBitmapParse. These only include spots where set API's are called and
where domain's XML is parsed.
Also, it partially reverts commit 983f5a which added a check for
invalid nodeset "0,^0" into virBitmapParse function. This change broke
the logic, as an empty bitmap should not cause an error.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210545
Commit 5bba61f changed the XPath strings to be absolute when parsing
the VM NUMA configuration. Unfortunately the <domain> element is not a
top level element when parsing the domain status XML thus the absolute
XPath string doesn't match.
Use the relative string so that the <numa> settings are not lost.
Signed-off-by: Luyao Huang <lhuang@redhat.com>
For historical reasons data regarding NUMA configuration were split
between the CPU definition and numatune. We cannot do anything about the
XML still being split, but we certainly can at least store the relevant
data in one place.
This patch moves the NUMA stuff to the right place.
As virDomainNumatuneSet now doesn't allocate the virDomainNuma object
any longer it's not necessary to pass the pointer to a pointer to store
the object as it will not change any longer.
While touching the parameter definitions I've also changed the name of
the parameter to "numa".
Since our formatter now handles well if the config is allocated and not
filled we can safely always-allocate the NUMA config and remove the
ad-hoc allocation code.
This will help in later patches as the parser will be refactored to just
fill the data.
Do a content-aware check if formatting of the <numatune> element is
necessary. Later on the def->numa structure will be always present so we
cannot decide only on the basis whether it's allocated.
Shuffling around the logic will allow to simplify the code quite a bit.
As an additional bonus the change in the logic now reports an error if
automatic placement is selected and individual placement is configured.
Currently the code would exit without reporting an error as
virBitmapParse reports one only if it fails to parse the bitmap, whereas
the code was jumping to the error label even in case 0 cpus were
correctly parsed in the map.
It's easier to recalculate the number in the one place it's used as
having a separate variable to track it. It will also help with moving
the NUMA code to the separate module.
Name it virNumaMemAccess and add it to conf/numa_conf.[ch]
Note that to avoid a circular dependency the type of the NUMA cell
memAccess variable was changed to int. It will be turned back later
after the circular dependency will not exist.
The mask was stored both as a bitmap and as a string. The string is used
for XML output only. Remove the string, as it can be reconstructed from
the bitmap.
The test change is necessary as the bitmap formatter doesn't "optimize"
using the '^' operator.
Rewrite the function to save a few local variables and reorder the code
to make more sense.
Additionally the ncells_max member of the virCPUDef structure is used
only for tracking allocation when parsing the numa definition, which can
be avoided by switching to VIR_ALLOC_N as the array is not resized
after initial allocation.
For weird historical reasons NUMA cells are added as a subelement of
<cpu> while the actual configuration is done in <numatune>.
This patch splits out the cell parser code from cpu config to NUMA
config. Note that the changes to the code are minimal just to make it
work and the function will be refactored in the next patch.
For a while now there are two places that gather information about NUMA
related guest configuration. While the XML can't be changed we can at
least store the data in one place in the definition.
Rename the numatune_conf.[ch] files to numa_conf as later patches will
move the rest of the definitions from the cpu definition to this one.
