Re: [Xen-devel] PV-vNUMA issue: topology is misinterpreted by the guest

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 14:17 -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 03:27 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:

> > In the meanwhile, what should we do? Document this? How? "don't use
> > vNUMA with PV guest in SMT enabled systems" seems a bit harsh... Is
> > there a workaround we can put in place/suggest?
> 
> I haven't been able to reproduce this on my Intel box because I think I 
> have different core enumeration. 
>
Yes, most likely, that's highly topology dependant. :-(

> Can you try adding
>    cpuid=['0x1:ebx=xxxxxxxx00000001xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx']
> to your config file?
> 
Done (sorry for the delay, the testbox was busy doing other stuff).

Still no joy (.101 is the IP address of the guest, domain id 3):

root@Zhaman:~# ssh root@xxxxxxxxxxxxx "yes > /dev/null 2>&1 &"
root@Zhaman:~# ssh root@xxxxxxxxxxxxx "yes > /dev/null 2>&1 &"
root@Zhaman:~# ssh root@xxxxxxxxxxxxx "yes > /dev/null 2>&1 &"
root@Zhaman:~# ssh root@xxxxxxxxxxxxx "yes > /dev/null 2>&1 &"
root@Zhaman:~# xl vcpu-list 3
Name                                ID  VCPU   CPU State   Time(s) Affinity 
(Hard / Soft)
test                                 3     0    4   r--      23.6  all / 0-7
test                                 3     1    9   r--      19.8  all / 0-7
test                                 3     2    8   -b-       0.4  all / 8-15
test                                 3     3    4   -b-       0.2  all / 8-15

*HOWEVER* it seems to have an effect. In fact, now, topology as it is
shown in /sys/... is different:

root@test:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/topology/thread_siblings_list 
0
(it was 0-1)

This, OTOH, is still the same:
root@test:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/topology/core_siblings_list  
0-3

Also, I now see this:

[    0.150560] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[    0.150560] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 0 at ../arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:317 
topology_sane.isra.2+0x74/0x88()
[    0.150560] sched: CPU #2's llc-sibling CPU #0 is not on the same node! 
[node: 1 != 0]. Ignoring dependency.
[    0.150560] Modules linked in:
[    0.150560] CPU: 2 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/2 Not tainted 3.19.0+ #1
[    0.150560]  0000000000000009 ffff88001ee2fdd0 ffffffff81657c7b 
ffffffff810bbd2c
[    0.150560]  ffff88001ee2fe20 ffff88001ee2fe10 ffffffff81081510 
ffff88001ee2fea0
[    0.150560]  ffffffff8103aa02 ffff88003ea0a001 0000000000000000 
ffff88001f20a040
[    0.150560] Call Trace:
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff81657c7b>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x7b
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff810bbd2c>] ? up+0x39/0x3e
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff81081510>] warn_slowpath_common+0xa1/0xbb
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff8103aa02>] ? topology_sane.isra.2+0x74/0x88
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff81081570>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x48
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff8101eeb1>] ? __cpuid.constprop.0+0x15/0x19
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff8103aa02>] topology_sane.isra.2+0x74/0x88
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff8103acd0>] set_cpu_sibling_map+0x27a/0x444
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff81056ac3>] ? numa_add_cpu+0x98/0x9f
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff8100b8f2>] cpu_bringup+0x63/0xa8
[    0.150560]  [<ffffffff8100b945>] cpu_bringup_and_idle+0xe/0x1a
[    0.150560] ---[ end trace 63d204896cce9f68 ]---

Notice that it now says 'llc-sibling', while, before, it was saying
'smt-sibling'.

> On AMD, BTW, we fail a different test so some other bits probably need 
> to be tweaked. You may fail it too (the LLC sanity check).
> 
Yep, that's the one I guess. Should I try something more/else?

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel