qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QMP: add query-hotpluggable-cpus


From: David Gibson
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] QMP: add query-hotpluggable-cpus
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:05:10 +1100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:52:42AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:48:34 +1100
> David Gibson <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:43:41PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > Igor Mammedov <address@hidden> writes:
> > >   
> > > > it will allow mgmt to query present and possible to hotplug CPUs
> > > > it is required from a target platform that wish to support
> > > > command to set board specific MachineClass.possible_cpus() hook,
> > > > which will return a list of possible CPUs with options
> > > > that would be needed for hotplugging possible CPUs.
> > > >
> > > > For RFC there are:
> > > >    'arch_id': 'int' - mandatory unique CPU number,
> > > >                       for x86 it's APIC ID for ARM it's MPIDR
> > > >    'type': 'str' - CPU object type for usage with device_add
> > > >
> > > > and a set of optional fields that would allows mgmt tools
> > > > to know at what granularity and where a new CPU could be
> > > > hotplugged;
> > > > [node],[socket],[core],[thread]
> > > > Hopefully that should cover needs for CPU hotplug porposes for
> > > > magor targets and we can extend structure in future adding
> > > > more fields if it will be needed.
> > > >
> > > > also for present CPUs there is a 'cpu_link' field which
> > > > would allow mgmt inspect whatever object/abstraction
> > > > the target platform considers as CPU object.
> > > >
> > > > For RFC purposes implements only for x86 target so far.  
> > > 
> > > Adding ad hoc queries as we go won't scale.  Could this be solved by a
> > > generic introspection interface?  
> > 
> > That's my main concern as well.
> > 
> > Igor,  did you see my post with a proposal for how to organize
> > hotpluggable packages of CPUs?  I believe that would also solve the
> > problem at hand here, by having a standard QOM location with
> > discoverable cpu objects.
> > 
> > The interface in your patch in particular would *not* solve the
> > problem of advertising to management layers what the granularity of
> > CPU hotplug is, which we absolutely need for Power.
> I've had in mind Power as well, as topology items are optional
> a query can respond with what granularity board would like
> to use and what type of object it could be hotplugged:
> 
> -> { "execute": "query-hotpluggable-cpus" }
> <- {"return": [
>      {"core": 2, "socket": 2, "arch_id": 2, "type": "power-foo-core-cpu"},
>      {"core": 1, "socket": 1, "arch_id": 1, "type": "power-foo-core-cpu"},
>      {"core": 0, "socket": 0, "arch_id": 0, "type": "power-foo-core-cpu", 
> "cpu_link": "/machine/unattached/device[3]"}
>    ]}

Hrm.. except your arch_id is supplied by a CPUClass hook, making it a
per-thread property, whereas here it needs to be per-core.

Other than that I guess this covers what we need for Power, however I
dislike the idea of typing the hotplug granularity to be at any fixed
level of the socket/core/thread heirarchy.  As noted elsewhere, while
all machines are likely to have some sort of similar heirarchy, giving
it fixed levels of "socket", "core" and "thread" may be limiting.

-- 
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]