Message ID | f7857c7a-ff39-d8c5-284b-f24cca1bef02@cn.fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:35:29PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > Hi Igor, > > At 08/23/2017 08:45 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:12:51 +0800 > > Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Igor, > > > > > > At 08/23/2017 04:40 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:24:10 +0800 > > > > Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> 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 <ehabkost@redhat.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > 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,slots=3,maxmem=1G' option, As the ACPI spec said, There may be some > Memory Device in the DSDT table. Do you really need to use -m 128,slots=3,maxmem=1G to test your bug fix?
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 21:35:29 +0800 Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > Hi Igor, > > At 08/23/2017 08:45 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:12:51 +0800 > > Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Igor, > >> > >> At 08/23/2017 04:40 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > >>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:24:10 +0800 > >>> Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> 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 <ehabkost@redhat.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> 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. If I recall it correctly the default memory for x86 is 128Mb, hence removing "-m" would probably make DSDT match default one. [...]
Hi Eduardo, At 08/24/2017 01:25 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:35:29PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: >> Hi Igor, >> >> At 08/23/2017 08:45 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:12:51 +0800 >>> Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Igor, >>>> >>>> At 08/23/2017 04:40 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:24:10 +0800 >>>>> Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> 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 <ehabkost@redhat.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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,slots=3,maxmem=1G' option, As the ACPI spec said, There may be some >> Memory Device in the DSDT table. > > Do you really need to use -m 128,slots=3,maxmem=1G to test your > bug fix? > I was wrong, As the default memory for x86 is 128Mb, I will remove this option to make one case just do one thing. Thanks, dou.
diff --git a/asl-YJ034Y.dsl b/asl-JLX34Y.dsl index c7b187b..6cd9e5d 100644 --- a/asl-YJ034Y.dsl +++ b/asl-JLX34Y.dsl @@ -5,13 +5,13 @@ * * Disassembling to symbolic ASL+ operators * - * Disassembly of tests/acpi-test-data/pc/DSDT, Wed Aug 23 21:22:56 2017 + * Disassembly of /tmp/aml-8IX34Y, Wed Aug 23 21:22:56 2017 * * Original Table Header: * Signature "DSDT" - * Length 0x000013EA (5098) + * Length 0x0000193F (6463) * Revision 0x01 **** 32-bit table (V1), no 64-bit math support - * Checksum 0x78 + * Checksum 0x7B * OEM ID "BOCHS " * OEM Table ID "BXPCDSDT"