From a039ed652e6d2f5edcef9d5d1d3baec17ce7f929 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gavin Shan Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 18:01:35 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 04/16] qtest/numa-test: Correct CPU and NUMA association in aarch64_numa_cpu() RH-Author: Gavin Shan RH-MergeRequest: 86: hw/arm/virt: Fix the default CPU topology RH-Commit: [4/6] 64e9908a179eb4fb586d662f70f275a81808e50c (gwshan/qemu-rhel-9) RH-Bugzilla: 2041823 RH-Acked-by: Eric Auger RH-Acked-by: Cornelia Huck RH-Acked-by: Andrew Jones Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041823 In aarch64_numa_cpu(), the CPU and NUMA association is something like below. Two threads in the same core/cluster/socket are associated with two individual NUMA nodes, which is unreal as Igor Mammedov mentioned. We don't expect the association to break NUMA-to-socket boundary, which matches with the real world. NUMA-node socket cluster core thread ------------------------------------------ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 This corrects the topology for CPUs and their association with NUMA nodes. After this patch is applied, the CPU and NUMA association becomes something like below, which looks real. Besides, socket/cluster/core/thread IDs are all checked when the NUMA node IDs are verified. It helps to check if the CPU topology is properly populated or not. NUMA-node socket cluster core thread ------------------------------------------ 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Suggested-by: Igor Mammedov Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan Acked-by: Igor Mammedov Message-id: 20220503140304.855514-5-gshan@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell (cherry picked from commit e280ecb39bc1629f74ea5479d464fd1608dc8f76) Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan --- tests/qtest/numa-test.c | 18 ++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/qtest/numa-test.c b/tests/qtest/numa-test.c index aeda8c774c..32e35daaae 100644 --- a/tests/qtest/numa-test.c +++ b/tests/qtest/numa-test.c @@ -224,17 +224,17 @@ static void aarch64_numa_cpu(const void *data) g_autofree char *cli = NULL; cli = make_cli(data, "-machine " - "smp.cpus=2,smp.sockets=1,smp.clusters=1,smp.cores=1,smp.threads=2 " + "smp.cpus=2,smp.sockets=2,smp.clusters=1,smp.cores=1,smp.threads=1 " "-numa node,nodeid=0,memdev=ram -numa node,nodeid=1 " - "-numa cpu,node-id=1,thread-id=0 " - "-numa cpu,node-id=0,thread-id=1"); + "-numa cpu,node-id=0,socket-id=1,cluster-id=0,core-id=0,thread-id=0 " + "-numa cpu,node-id=1,socket-id=0,cluster-id=0,core-id=0,thread-id=0"); qts = qtest_init(cli); cpus = get_cpus(qts, &resp); g_assert(cpus); while ((e = qlist_pop(cpus))) { QDict *cpu, *props; - int64_t thread, node; + int64_t socket, cluster, core, thread, node; cpu = qobject_to(QDict, e); g_assert(qdict_haskey(cpu, "props")); @@ -242,12 +242,18 @@ static void aarch64_numa_cpu(const void *data) g_assert(qdict_haskey(props, "node-id")); node = qdict_get_int(props, "node-id"); + g_assert(qdict_haskey(props, "socket-id")); + socket = qdict_get_int(props, "socket-id"); + g_assert(qdict_haskey(props, "cluster-id")); + cluster = qdict_get_int(props, "cluster-id"); + g_assert(qdict_haskey(props, "core-id")); + core = qdict_get_int(props, "core-id"); g_assert(qdict_haskey(props, "thread-id")); thread = qdict_get_int(props, "thread-id"); - if (thread == 0) { + if (socket == 0 && cluster == 0 && core == 0 && thread == 0) { g_assert_cmpint(node, ==, 1); - } else if (thread == 1) { + } else if (socket == 1 && cluster == 0 && core == 0 && thread == 0) { g_assert_cmpint(node, ==, 0); } else { g_assert(false); -- 2.31.1