| Message ID | 1425520601-3610-1-git-send-email-aik@ozlabs.ru |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 05.03.15 02:56, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > At the moment when running in KVM mode, QEMU registers "host" class to > match the current CPU PVR value. It also registers another CPU class > with a CPU family name os if we run QEMU on POWER7 machine, "host" and > "POWER7" classes are created, this way we can always use "-cpu POWER7" > on the actual POWER7 machine. > > The existing code uses DeviceClass::desc field of the CPU class as > a source for the class name; it was pointed out that it is wrong to use > user-visible string as a type name. > > This adds a common CPU class name into PowerPCCPUClass struct. > This makes registration of a CPU named after the family conditional - > PowerPCCPUClass::common_cpu_name has to be non-zero. Only POWER7/POWER8 > families have this field initialized by now. > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> LGTM. Andreas, do you agree? Alex > --- > target-ppc/cpu-qom.h | 1 + > target-ppc/kvm.c | 11 ++++++----- > target-ppc/translate_init.c | 2 ++ > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h b/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h > index 6967a80..4b471d7 100644 > --- a/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h > +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h > @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ typedef struct PowerPCCPUClass { > DeviceRealize parent_realize; > void (*parent_reset)(CPUState *cpu); > > + const char *common_cpu_name; > uint32_t pvr; > bool (*pvr_match)(struct PowerPCCPUClass *pcc, uint32_t pvr); > uint64_t pcr_mask; > diff --git a/target-ppc/kvm.c b/target-ppc/kvm.c > index b479471..3f2df65 100644 > --- a/target-ppc/kvm.c > +++ b/target-ppc/kvm.c > @@ -2221,7 +2221,6 @@ static int kvm_ppc_register_host_cpu_type(void) > }; > uint32_t host_pvr = mfpvr(); > PowerPCCPUClass *pvr_pcc; > - DeviceClass *dc; > > pvr_pcc = ppc_cpu_class_by_pvr(host_pvr); > if (pvr_pcc == NULL) { > @@ -2235,10 +2234,12 @@ static int kvm_ppc_register_host_cpu_type(void) > > /* Register generic family CPU class for a family */ > pvr_pcc = ppc_cpu_get_family_class(pvr_pcc); > - dc = DEVICE_CLASS(pvr_pcc); > - type_info.parent = object_class_get_name(OBJECT_CLASS(pvr_pcc)); > - type_info.name = g_strdup_printf("%s-"TYPE_POWERPC_CPU, dc->desc); > - type_register(&type_info); > + if (pvr_pcc->common_cpu_name) { > + type_info.parent = object_class_get_name(OBJECT_CLASS(pvr_pcc)); > + type_info.name = g_strdup_printf("%s-"TYPE_POWERPC_CPU, > + pvr_pcc->common_cpu_name); > + type_register(&type_info); > + } > > return 0; > } > diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c > index df1a62c..3d0be66 100644 > --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c > +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c > @@ -8117,6 +8117,7 @@ POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER7)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) > dc->fw_name = "PowerPC,POWER7"; > dc->desc = "POWER7"; > dc->props = powerpc_servercpu_properties; > + pcc->common_cpu_name = "POWER7"; > pcc->pvr_match = ppc_pvr_match_power7; > pcc->pcr_mask = PCR_COMPAT_2_05 | PCR_COMPAT_2_06; > pcc->init_proc = init_proc_POWER7; > @@ -8193,6 +8194,7 @@ POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER8)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) > dc->fw_name = "PowerPC,POWER8"; > dc->desc = "POWER8"; > dc->props = powerpc_servercpu_properties; > + pcc->common_cpu_name = "POWER8"; > pcc->pvr_match = ppc_pvr_match_power8; > pcc->pcr_mask = PCR_COMPAT_2_05 | PCR_COMPAT_2_06; > pcc->init_proc = init_proc_POWER8; >
On 03/06/2015 12:17 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 05.03.15 02:56, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> At the moment when running in KVM mode, QEMU registers "host" class to >> match the current CPU PVR value. It also registers another CPU class >> with a CPU family name os if we run QEMU on POWER7 machine, "host" and >> "POWER7" classes are created, this way we can always use "-cpu POWER7" >> on the actual POWER7 machine. >> >> The existing code uses DeviceClass::desc field of the CPU class as >> a source for the class name; it was pointed out that it is wrong to use >> user-visible string as a type name. >> >> This adds a common CPU class name into PowerPCCPUClass struct. >> This makes registration of a CPU named after the family conditional - >> PowerPCCPUClass::common_cpu_name has to be non-zero. Only POWER7/POWER8 >> families have this field initialized by now. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> > > LGTM. Andreas, do you agree? Ping? > > > Alex > > >> --- >> target-ppc/cpu-qom.h | 1 + >> target-ppc/kvm.c | 11 ++++++----- >> target-ppc/translate_init.c | 2 ++ >> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h b/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h >> index 6967a80..4b471d7 100644 >> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h >> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h >> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ typedef struct PowerPCCPUClass { >> DeviceRealize parent_realize; >> void (*parent_reset)(CPUState *cpu); >> >> + const char *common_cpu_name; >> uint32_t pvr; >> bool (*pvr_match)(struct PowerPCCPUClass *pcc, uint32_t pvr); >> uint64_t pcr_mask; >> diff --git a/target-ppc/kvm.c b/target-ppc/kvm.c >> index b479471..3f2df65 100644 >> --- a/target-ppc/kvm.c >> +++ b/target-ppc/kvm.c >> @@ -2221,7 +2221,6 @@ static int kvm_ppc_register_host_cpu_type(void) >> }; >> uint32_t host_pvr = mfpvr(); >> PowerPCCPUClass *pvr_pcc; >> - DeviceClass *dc; >> >> pvr_pcc = ppc_cpu_class_by_pvr(host_pvr); >> if (pvr_pcc == NULL) { >> @@ -2235,10 +2234,12 @@ static int kvm_ppc_register_host_cpu_type(void) >> >> /* Register generic family CPU class for a family */ >> pvr_pcc = ppc_cpu_get_family_class(pvr_pcc); >> - dc = DEVICE_CLASS(pvr_pcc); >> - type_info.parent = object_class_get_name(OBJECT_CLASS(pvr_pcc)); >> - type_info.name = g_strdup_printf("%s-"TYPE_POWERPC_CPU, dc->desc); >> - type_register(&type_info); >> + if (pvr_pcc->common_cpu_name) { >> + type_info.parent = object_class_get_name(OBJECT_CLASS(pvr_pcc)); >> + type_info.name = g_strdup_printf("%s-"TYPE_POWERPC_CPU, >> + pvr_pcc->common_cpu_name); >> + type_register(&type_info); >> + } >> >> return 0; >> } >> diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c >> index df1a62c..3d0be66 100644 >> --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c >> +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c >> @@ -8117,6 +8117,7 @@ POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER7)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) >> dc->fw_name = "PowerPC,POWER7"; >> dc->desc = "POWER7"; >> dc->props = powerpc_servercpu_properties; >> + pcc->common_cpu_name = "POWER7"; >> pcc->pvr_match = ppc_pvr_match_power7; >> pcc->pcr_mask = PCR_COMPAT_2_05 | PCR_COMPAT_2_06; >> pcc->init_proc = init_proc_POWER7; >> @@ -8193,6 +8194,7 @@ POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER8)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) >> dc->fw_name = "PowerPC,POWER8"; >> dc->desc = "POWER8"; >> dc->props = powerpc_servercpu_properties; >> + pcc->common_cpu_name = "POWER8"; >> pcc->pvr_match = ppc_pvr_match_power8; >> pcc->pcr_mask = PCR_COMPAT_2_05 | PCR_COMPAT_2_06; >> pcc->init_proc = init_proc_POWER8; >>
Am 16.03.2015 um 05:58 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy: > On 03/06/2015 12:17 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> On 05.03.15 02:56, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>> At the moment when running in KVM mode, QEMU registers "host" class to >>> match the current CPU PVR value. It also registers another CPU class >>> with a CPU family name os if we run QEMU on POWER7 machine, "host" and >>> "POWER7" classes are created, this way we can always use "-cpu POWER7" >>> on the actual POWER7 machine. >>> >>> The existing code uses DeviceClass::desc field of the CPU class as >>> a source for the class name; it was pointed out that it is wrong to use >>> user-visible string as a type name. >>> >>> This adds a common CPU class name into PowerPCCPUClass struct. >>> This makes registration of a CPU named after the family conditional - >>> PowerPCCPUClass::common_cpu_name has to be non-zero. Only POWER7/POWER8 >>> families have this field initialized by now. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> >> >> LGTM. Andreas, do you agree? > > > Ping? No, I don't agree. Inventing a new class field just to distinguish POWER7/POWER8 here seems like a weird idea, and the code placement is not fixed either. I gathered that you want -cpu POWER7 and -cpu POWER8 to work on POWER8 hardware and -cpu POWER7 on POWER7, for migration purposes, correct? What exact PVRs have you tested on and why does it not work without those types despite the PVR masking? To investigate I need a test case. Is this just a question of the generic family type being abstract and needing an updated PVR value? Which other fields are actually used? Regards, Andreas
On 03/16/2015 09:40 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 16.03.2015 um 05:58 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy: >> On 03/06/2015 12:17 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> On 05.03.15 02:56, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>> At the moment when running in KVM mode, QEMU registers "host" class to >>>> match the current CPU PVR value. It also registers another CPU class >>>> with a CPU family name os if we run QEMU on POWER7 machine, "host" and >>>> "POWER7" classes are created, this way we can always use "-cpu POWER7" >>>> on the actual POWER7 machine. >>>> >>>> The existing code uses DeviceClass::desc field of the CPU class as >>>> a source for the class name; it was pointed out that it is wrong to use >>>> user-visible string as a type name. >>>> >>>> This adds a common CPU class name into PowerPCCPUClass struct. >>>> This makes registration of a CPU named after the family conditional - >>>> PowerPCCPUClass::common_cpu_name has to be non-zero. Only POWER7/POWER8 >>>> families have this field initialized by now. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> >>> >>> LGTM. Andreas, do you agree? >> >> >> Ping? > > No, I don't agree. Inventing a new class field just to distinguish > POWER7/POWER8 here seems like a weird idea, As weird as PVR itself :) > and the code placement is not fixed either. What is wrong with the code placement? > I gathered that you want -cpu POWER7 and -cpu POWER8 to work on POWER8 > hardware and -cpu POWER7 on POWER7, for migration purposes, correct? > > What exact PVRs have you tested on and why does it not work without > those types despite the PVR masking? To investigate I need a test case. The real host is 003f 0201. -cpu POWER7 will fail without my patches as POWER7 is alias of 003f 0203. Or real host 004b 0201 - -cpu POWER8 will try 004d 0100 and fail. > Is this just a question of the generic family type being abstract and > needing an updated PVR value? May be. That could help too I suppose. > Which other fields are actually used? Sorry, used where? :)
Adding David to this old conversation. On 03/17/2015 09:47 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > On 03/16/2015 09:40 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 16.03.2015 um 05:58 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy: >>> On 03/06/2015 12:17 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> On 05.03.15 02:56, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>>> At the moment when running in KVM mode, QEMU registers "host" class to >>>>> match the current CPU PVR value. It also registers another CPU class >>>>> with a CPU family name os if we run QEMU on POWER7 machine, "host" and >>>>> "POWER7" classes are created, this way we can always use "-cpu POWER7" >>>>> on the actual POWER7 machine. >>>>> >>>>> The existing code uses DeviceClass::desc field of the CPU class as >>>>> a source for the class name; it was pointed out that it is wrong to use >>>>> user-visible string as a type name. >>>>> >>>>> This adds a common CPU class name into PowerPCCPUClass struct. >>>>> This makes registration of a CPU named after the family conditional - >>>>> PowerPCCPUClass::common_cpu_name has to be non-zero. Only POWER7/POWER8 >>>>> families have this field initialized by now. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> >>>> >>>> LGTM. Andreas, do you agree? >>> >>> >>> Ping? >> >> No, I don't agree. Inventing a new class field just to distinguish >> POWER7/POWER8 here seems like a weird idea, > > As weird as PVR itself :) > >> and the code placement is not fixed either. > > What is wrong with the code placement? > > >> I gathered that you want -cpu POWER7 and -cpu POWER8 to work on POWER8 >> hardware and -cpu POWER7 on POWER7, for migration purposes, correct? >> >> What exact PVRs have you tested on and why does it not work without >> those types despite the PVR masking? To investigate I need a test case. > > The real host is 003f 0201. -cpu POWER7 will fail without my patches as > POWER7 is alias of 003f 0203. > > Or real host 004b 0201 - -cpu POWER8 will try 004d 0100 and fail. > > >> Is this just a question of the generic family type being abstract and >> needing an updated PVR value? > > May be. That could help too I suppose. > >> Which other fields are actually used? > > Sorry, used where? :) > > >
On 07/08/2015 04:37 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > Adding David to this old conversation. This is the patch: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/446544/ > > On 03/17/2015 09:47 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 03/16/2015 09:40 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Am 16.03.2015 um 05:58 schrieb Alexey Kardashevskiy: >>>> On 03/06/2015 12:17 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> On 05.03.15 02:56, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>>>> At the moment when running in KVM mode, QEMU registers "host" class to >>>>>> match the current CPU PVR value. It also registers another CPU class >>>>>> with a CPU family name os if we run QEMU on POWER7 machine, "host" and >>>>>> "POWER7" classes are created, this way we can always use "-cpu POWER7" >>>>>> on the actual POWER7 machine. >>>>>> >>>>>> The existing code uses DeviceClass::desc field of the CPU class as >>>>>> a source for the class name; it was pointed out that it is wrong to use >>>>>> user-visible string as a type name. >>>>>> >>>>>> This adds a common CPU class name into PowerPCCPUClass struct. >>>>>> This makes registration of a CPU named after the family conditional - >>>>>> PowerPCCPUClass::common_cpu_name has to be non-zero. Only POWER7/POWER8 >>>>>> families have this field initialized by now. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> >>>>> >>>>> LGTM. Andreas, do you agree? >>>> >>>> >>>> Ping? >>> >>> No, I don't agree. Inventing a new class field just to distinguish >>> POWER7/POWER8 here seems like a weird idea, >> >> As weird as PVR itself :) >> >>> and the code placement is not fixed either. >> >> What is wrong with the code placement? >> >> >>> I gathered that you want -cpu POWER7 and -cpu POWER8 to work on POWER8 >>> hardware and -cpu POWER7 on POWER7, for migration purposes, correct? >>> >>> What exact PVRs have you tested on and why does it not work without >>> those types despite the PVR masking? To investigate I need a test case. >> >> The real host is 003f 0201. -cpu POWER7 will fail without my patches as >> POWER7 is alias of 003f 0203. >> >> Or real host 004b 0201 - -cpu POWER8 will try 004d 0100 and fail. >> >> >>> Is this just a question of the generic family type being abstract and >>> needing an updated PVR value? >> >> May be. That could help too I suppose. >> >>> Which other fields are actually used? >> >> Sorry, used where? :) >> >> >> > >
diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h b/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h index 6967a80..4b471d7 100644 --- a/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-qom.h @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ typedef struct PowerPCCPUClass { DeviceRealize parent_realize; void (*parent_reset)(CPUState *cpu); + const char *common_cpu_name; uint32_t pvr; bool (*pvr_match)(struct PowerPCCPUClass *pcc, uint32_t pvr); uint64_t pcr_mask; diff --git a/target-ppc/kvm.c b/target-ppc/kvm.c index b479471..3f2df65 100644 --- a/target-ppc/kvm.c +++ b/target-ppc/kvm.c @@ -2221,7 +2221,6 @@ static int kvm_ppc_register_host_cpu_type(void) }; uint32_t host_pvr = mfpvr(); PowerPCCPUClass *pvr_pcc; - DeviceClass *dc; pvr_pcc = ppc_cpu_class_by_pvr(host_pvr); if (pvr_pcc == NULL) { @@ -2235,10 +2234,12 @@ static int kvm_ppc_register_host_cpu_type(void) /* Register generic family CPU class for a family */ pvr_pcc = ppc_cpu_get_family_class(pvr_pcc); - dc = DEVICE_CLASS(pvr_pcc); - type_info.parent = object_class_get_name(OBJECT_CLASS(pvr_pcc)); - type_info.name = g_strdup_printf("%s-"TYPE_POWERPC_CPU, dc->desc); - type_register(&type_info); + if (pvr_pcc->common_cpu_name) { + type_info.parent = object_class_get_name(OBJECT_CLASS(pvr_pcc)); + type_info.name = g_strdup_printf("%s-"TYPE_POWERPC_CPU, + pvr_pcc->common_cpu_name); + type_register(&type_info); + } return 0; } diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c index df1a62c..3d0be66 100644 --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c @@ -8117,6 +8117,7 @@ POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER7)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) dc->fw_name = "PowerPC,POWER7"; dc->desc = "POWER7"; dc->props = powerpc_servercpu_properties; + pcc->common_cpu_name = "POWER7"; pcc->pvr_match = ppc_pvr_match_power7; pcc->pcr_mask = PCR_COMPAT_2_05 | PCR_COMPAT_2_06; pcc->init_proc = init_proc_POWER7; @@ -8193,6 +8194,7 @@ POWERPC_FAMILY(POWER8)(ObjectClass *oc, void *data) dc->fw_name = "PowerPC,POWER8"; dc->desc = "POWER8"; dc->props = powerpc_servercpu_properties; + pcc->common_cpu_name = "POWER8"; pcc->pvr_match = ppc_pvr_match_power8; pcc->pcr_mask = PCR_COMPAT_2_05 | PCR_COMPAT_2_06; pcc->init_proc = init_proc_POWER8;
At the moment when running in KVM mode, QEMU registers "host" class to match the current CPU PVR value. It also registers another CPU class with a CPU family name os if we run QEMU on POWER7 machine, "host" and "POWER7" classes are created, this way we can always use "-cpu POWER7" on the actual POWER7 machine. The existing code uses DeviceClass::desc field of the CPU class as a source for the class name; it was pointed out that it is wrong to use user-visible string as a type name. This adds a common CPU class name into PowerPCCPUClass struct. This makes registration of a CPU named after the family conditional - PowerPCCPUClass::common_cpu_name has to be non-zero. Only POWER7/POWER8 families have this field initialized by now. Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> --- target-ppc/cpu-qom.h | 1 + target-ppc/kvm.c | 11 ++++++----- target-ppc/translate_init.c | 2 ++ 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)