From nobody Sun Feb 8 19:38:16 2026 Delivered-To: importer@patchew.org Received-SPF: pass (zoho.com: domain of redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.183.28; envelope-from=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; helo=mx1.redhat.com; Authentication-Results: mx.zohomail.com; spf=pass (zoho.com: domain of redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; dmarc=pass(p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1559205250; cv=none; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc; b=RYtT+oNlvPn1aEX460RgSW95lOLFOgCZOiVML4jpWAAwb1pCiyBTN5azV4YpK19Kpa2uDUfg4KNA2dzPZPc3ClsV+hmqGr5cynV/u42Hg41/Ln/t4OEzCE8DZR3siB/3CDauQpX0xux6BRum6roAvH5/PV1oijOEB/BFgc5oeeE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zoho.com; s=zohoarc; t=1559205250; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Id:List-Archive:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Sender:Subject:To:ARC-Authentication-Results; bh=T1bQDjD411Yiblq52bSo7VVyxMg9YhkNl6OQprOL1ZA=; b=Jnw9nIC2hHBylDvGpVLpIrouHCgsVh9y7WNOl75pikWUzw/U8l31VBzfmf13s+eQIr8eJh/tKwpyULO/ra1el+GNsGpYqQ8zV6/5eLjlK+0gDhF2l7l5M7uJlA/2LvlBxUi1USYwTRs13pGk93jTRxWPSeMAr505lStfAuCONAg= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zoho.com; spf=pass (zoho.com: domain of redhat.com designates 209.132.183.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com; dmarc=pass header.from= (p=none dis=none) header.from= Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 155920525016141.30136784028127; Thu, 30 May 2019 01:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 128B030C084B; Thu, 30 May 2019 08:33:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (colo-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E809C5D9E1; Thu, 30 May 2019 08:33:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.19.33]) by colo-mx.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56E4206D3; Thu, 30 May 2019 08:33:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id x4U8WqAc015849 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 04:32:52 -0400 Received: by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) id 9361810027C7; Thu, 30 May 2019 08:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dell-r430-03.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com (dell-r430-03.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com [10.37.153.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F87C1001E86; Thu, 30 May 2019 08:32:50 +0000 (UTC) From: Igor Mammedov To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 10:33:19 +0200 Message-Id: <1559205199-233510-4-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1559205199-233510-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> References: <1559205199-233510-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-loop: libvir-list@redhat.com Cc: libvir-list@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, ehabkost@redhat.com Subject: [libvirt] [PATCH v4 3/3] numa: deprecate implict memory distribution between nodes X-BeenThere: libvir-list@redhat.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: junk List-Id: Development discussions about the libvirt library & tools List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: libvir-list-bounces@redhat.com X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.46]); Thu, 30 May 2019 08:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Implicit RAM distribution between nodes has exactly the same issues as: "numa: deprecate 'mem' parameter of '-numa node' option" only with QEMU being the user that's 'adding' 'mem' parameter. Deprecate it, to get it out of the way so that we could consolidate guest RAM allocation using memory backends making it consistent and possibly later on transition to using memory devices instead of adhoc memory mapping for the initial RAM. Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov --- numa.c | 3 +++ qemu-deprecated.texi | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+) diff --git a/numa.c b/numa.c index 2205773..6d45a1f 100644 --- a/numa.c +++ b/numa.c @@ -409,6 +409,9 @@ void numa_complete_configuration(MachineState *ms) if (i =3D=3D nb_numa_nodes) { assert(mc->numa_auto_assign_ram); mc->numa_auto_assign_ram(mc, numa_info, nb_numa_nodes, ram_siz= e); + warn_report("Default splitting of RAM between nodes is depreca= ted," + " Use '-numa node,memdev' to explictly define RAM" + " allocation per node"); } =20 numa_total =3D 0; diff --git a/qemu-deprecated.texi b/qemu-deprecated.texi index eb347f5..c744ba9 100644 --- a/qemu-deprecated.texi +++ b/qemu-deprecated.texi @@ -98,6 +98,14 @@ In future new machine versions will not accept the optio= n but it will still work with old machine types. User can check QAPI schema to see if the lega= cy option is supported by looking at MachineInfo::numa-mem-supported property. =20 +@subsection -numa node (without memory specified) (since 4.1) + +Splitting RAM by default between NUMA nodes has the same issues as @option= {mem} +parameter described above with the difference that the role of the user pl= ays +QEMU using implicit generic or board specific splitting rule. +Use @option{memdev} with @var{memory-backend-ram} backend or @option{mem} = (if +it's supported by used machine type) to define mapping explictly instead. + @section QEMU Machine Protocol (QMP) commands =20 @subsection block-dirty-bitmap-add "autoload" parameter (since 2.12.0) --=20 2.7.4 -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list