[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] hw/acpi/aml-build: add processor hierarchy node stru
|
From: |
Michael S. Tsirkin |
|
Subject: |
Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] hw/acpi/aml-build: add processor hierarchy node structure |
|
Date: |
Mon, 1 Mar 2021 10:50:06 -0500 |
On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 10:39:19AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:23:03AM +0800, Ying Fang wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/25/2021 7:47 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 04:56:26PM +0800, Ying Fang wrote:
> > > > Add the processor hierarchy node structures to build ACPI information
> > > > for CPU topology. Since the private resources may be used to describe
> > > > cache hierarchy and it is variable among different topology level,
> > > > three helpers are introduced to describe the hierarchy.
> > > >
> > > > (1) build_socket_hierarchy for socket description
> > > > (2) build_processor_hierarchy for processor description
> > > > (3) build_smt_hierarchy for thread (logic processor) description
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ying Fang <fangying1@huawei.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Henglong Fan <fanhenglong@huawei.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > hw/acpi/aml-build.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h | 13 ++++++++++++
> > > > include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h | 7 +++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> > > > index a2cd7a5830..a0af3e9d73 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c
> > > > @@ -1888,6 +1888,46 @@ void build_slit(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker
> > > > *linker, MachineState *ms,
> > > > table_data->len - slit_start, 1, oem_id,
> > > > oem_table_id);
> > > > }
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * ACPI 6.3: 5.2.29.1 Processor hierarchy node structure (Type 0)
> > > > + */
> > > > +void build_socket_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t parent, uint32_t id)
> > > > +{
> > > > + build_append_byte(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR); /* Type 0 -
> > > > processor */
> > > > + build_append_byte(tbl, 20); /* Length, no private
> > > > resources */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 2); /* Reserved */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_PHYSICAL_PACKAGE, 4);
> > >
> > > Missing '/* Flags */'
> >
> > Will fix.
> >
> > >
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, parent, 4); /* Parent */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, id, 4); /* ACPI processor ID */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 4); /* Number of private
> > > > resources */
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void build_processor_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t flags,
> > > > + uint32_t parent, uint32_t id)
> > > > +{
> > > > + build_append_byte(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR); /* Type 0 -
> > > > processor */
> > > > + build_append_byte(tbl, 20); /* Length, no private
> > > > resources */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 2); /* Reserved */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, flags, 4); /* Flags */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, parent, 4); /* Parent */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, id, 4); /* ACPI processor ID */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 4); /* Number of private
> > > > resources */
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void build_thread_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t parent, uint32_t id)
> > > > +{
> > > > + build_append_byte(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR); /* Type 0 -
> > > > processor */
> > > > + build_append_byte(tbl, 20); /* Length, no private
> > > > resources */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 2); /* Reserved */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl,
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID |
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_IS_THREAD |
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_LEAF_NODE, 4); /* Flags
> > > > */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, parent , 4); /* parent */
> > >
> > > 'parent' not capitalized. We want these comments to exactly match the text
> > > in the spec.
> >
> > Will fix.
> >
> > >
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, id, 4); /* ACPI processor ID */
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 4); /* Num of private
> > > > resources */
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > /* build rev1/rev3/rev5.1 FADT */
> > > > void build_fadt(GArray *tbl, BIOSLinker *linker, const AcpiFadtData
> > > > *f,
> > > > const char *oem_id, const char *oem_table_id)
> > > > diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h b/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h
> > > > index cf9f44299c..45e10d886f 100644
> > > > --- a/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h
> > > > +++ b/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h
> > > > @@ -618,4 +618,17 @@ struct AcpiIortRC {
> > > > } QEMU_PACKED;
> > > > typedef struct AcpiIortRC AcpiIortRC;
> > > > +enum {
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR = 0,
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_CACHE,
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_ID,
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_RESERVED
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +#define ACPI_PPTT_PHYSICAL_PACKAGE (1)
> > > > +#define ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID (1 << 1)
> > > > +#define ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_IS_THREAD (1 << 2) /* ACPI 6.3
> > > > */
> > > > +#define ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_LEAF_NODE (1 << 3) /* ACPI 6.3
> > > > */
> > > > +#define ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_IDENTICAL (1 << 4) /* ACPI 6.3
> > > > */
You need to quote specific place in spec where this appeared, not
just version. and what about previous ones?
> > > > +
> > > > #endif
> > > > diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h b/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h
> > > > index 380d3e3924..7f0ca1a198 100644
> > > > --- a/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h
> > > > +++ b/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h
> > > > @@ -462,6 +462,13 @@ void build_srat_memory(AcpiSratMemoryAffinity
> > > > *numamem, uint64_t base,
> > > > void build_slit(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState
> > > > *ms,
> > > > const char *oem_id, const char *oem_table_id);
> > > > +void build_socket_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t parent, uint32_t id);
> > > > +
> > > > +void build_processor_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t flags,
> > > > + uint32_t parent, uint32_t id);
> > > > +
> > > > +void build_thread_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t parent, uint32_t id);
> > >
> > > Why does build_processor_hierarchy() take a flags argument, but the
> > > others don't? Why not just have a single 'flags' taking function,
> > > like [*] that works for all of them? I think that answer to that is
> >
> > Yes, you are right.
> >
> > > that when cache topology support is added it's better to break these
> > > into separate functions, but should we do that now? It seems odd to
> > > be introducing unused defines and this API before it's necessary.
> > So it is better for us to keep just one common build_processor_hierarchy
> > API here in your opinion.
>
> Well, a consistent API without unused defines. Whether or not that's
> a single common function or not isn't that important.
>
> Thanks,
> drew
Yes, the preferred way is code comments:
E.g.
build_append_byte(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR); /* Type 0 - processor */
should be
build_append_byte(tbl, 0); /* Type 0 - processor */
similar:
> > > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl,
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID |
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_IS_THREAD |
> > > > + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_LEAF_NODE, 4); /* Flags
> > > > */
should be
+ build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, /* Processor Structure Flags */
+ (1 << 1) /* ACPI Processor ID valid */|
+ (1 << 2) /* Processor is a Thread */) |
+ (1 << 3) /* Node is a Leaf */, 4);
where you would make sure the text matches the spec verbatim.
also note how for multi-line code comments precede the code.
For single-line they can come after the code.
> >
> > >
> > > [*]
> > > https://github.com/rhdrjones/qemu/commit/439b38d67ca1f2cbfa5b9892a822b651ebd05c11
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > drew
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > void build_fadt(GArray *tbl, BIOSLinker *linker, const AcpiFadtData
> > > > *f,
> > > > const char *oem_id, const char *oem_table_id);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.23.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ying.
> >