Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 2/2] ACPI/unit-test: Add a new testcase for RAM allocation in numa node

[Igor Mammedov]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:42:28 +0800
Dou Liyang <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi Igor,
> 
> At 08/24/2017 01:47 AM, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:35:29 +0800
> > Dou Liyang <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  
> >> Hi Igor,
> >>
> >> At 08/23/2017 08:45 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:12:51 +0800
> >>> Dou Liyang <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>  
> >>>> Hi Igor,
> >>>>
> >>>> At 08/23/2017 04:40 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> >>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:24:10 +0800
> >>>>> Dou Liyang <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>> As QEMU supports the memory-less node, it is possible that there is
> >>>>>> no RAM in the first numa node(also be called as node0). eg:
> >>>>>>   ... \
> >>>>>>   -m 128,slots=3,maxmem=1G \
> >>>>>>   -numa node -numa node,mem=128M \
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But, this makes it hard for QEMU to build a known-to-work ACPI SRAT
> >>>>>> table. Only fixing it is not enough.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Add a testcase for this situation to make sure the ACPI table is
> >>>>>> correct for guest.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Suggested-by: Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <address@hidden>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  tests/acpi-test-data/pc/DSDT.numamem  | Bin 0 -> 6463 bytes
> >>>>>>  tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SLIT.numamem  | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes
> >>>>>>  tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SRAT.numamem  | Bin 0 -> 264 bytes
> >>>>>>  tests/acpi-test-data/q35/DSDT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 9147 bytes
> >>>>>>  tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SLIT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes
> >>>>>>  tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SRAT.numamem | Bin 0 -> 264 bytes
> >>>>>>  tests/bios-tables-test.c              |  30 
> >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>  7 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/DSDT.numamem
> >>>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SLIT.numamem
> >>>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/pc/SRAT.numamem
> >>>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/DSDT.numamem
> >>>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SLIT.numamem
> >>>>>>  create mode 100644 tests/acpi-test-data/q35/SRAT.numamem  
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> considering only SRAT table has been changed and the other
> >>>>> tables match with default blobs, I'd suggest to keep only  
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Our testcase is：
> >>>>
> >>>> +    test_acpi_one(" -m 128,slots=3,maxmem=1G"
> >>>> +                  " -numa node -numa node,mem=128"
> >>>> +                  " -numa dist,src=0,dst=1,val=21",
> >>>> +                  &data);
> >>>>
> >>>> The DSDT and SLIT don't match with default blobs.  
> >>> do you actually need SLIT table /i.e. -numa dist/ for test at all?
> >>> it looks not relevant for the test case at the hand,
> >>> I'd suggest to drop '-numa dist' option for the test.
> >>>  
> >>
> >> OK, Got it, will drop '-numa dist' option in next version.
> >>  
> >>>>
> >>>> So, they can't be dropped.  
> >>>
> >>> I wonder what's changed, could you post DSDT diff here?
> >>>  
> >>
> >> Just like memory hot-plug cases, when we use the '-m 128
> >> 128,slots=3,maxmem=1G' option, As the ACPI spec said, There may be some
> >> Memory Device in the DSDT table.  
> > for your case '-numa node -numa node,mem=128', there is no need in enabling 
> > memory hotplug.  
> 
> Thank you very much for your kind explanation.
> 
> Yes, I understood.
> 
> > If I recall it correctly the default memory for x86 is 128Mb,
> > hence removing "-m" would probably make DSDT match default one.  
> 
> Yes, I removed the "-m":
> 
> test_acpi_one(" -numa node -numa node,mem=128", &data);
> 
> but, the DSDT didn't match the default one. because, if we support
> NUMA, the DSDT will give us "_PXM" to map the CPU to node.

Ok, looks like you'll have to include your variant of DSDT along with SRAT