Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 05/24] spapr: Reorganize CPU dt generation code

[David Gibson]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:06:07AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 05:17:48PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:17:27PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > Reorganize CPU device tree generation code so that it be reused from
> > > hotplug path. CPU dt entries are now generated from spapr_finalize_fdt()
> > > instead of spapr_create_fdt_skel().
> > 
> > Creating CPU DT entries from spapr_finalize_fdt() instead of
> > spapr_create_fdt_skel() has an interesting side effect.
> > 
> > <snip> 
> > 
> > In both the cases, I am adding CPU DT nodes from QEMU in the same order,
> > but not sure why the guest kernel discovers them in different orders in
> > each case.
> 
> Nikunj and I tracked this down to the difference in device tree APIs that
> we are using in two cases.
> 
> When CPU DT nodes are created from spapr_create_fdt_skel(), we are using
> fdt_begin_node() API which does sequential write and hence CPU DT nodes
> end up in the same order in which they are created.
> 
> However in my patch when I create CPU DT entries in spapr_finalize_fdt(),
> I am using fdt_add_subnode() which ends up writing the CPU DT node at the
> same parent offset for all the CPUs. This results in CPU DT nodes being
> generated in reverse order in FDT.
> 
> > 
> > > +static void spapr_populate_cpus_dt_node(void *fdt, sPAPREnvironment 
> > > *spapr)
> > > +{
> > > +    CPUState *cs;
> > > +    int cpus_offset;
> > > +    char *nodename;
> > > +    int smt = kvmppc_smt_threads();
> > > +
> > > +    cpus_offset = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, 0, "cpus");
> > > +    _FDT(cpus_offset);
> > > +    _FDT((fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, cpus_offset, "#address-cells", 0x1)));
> > > +    _FDT((fdt_setprop_cell(fdt, cpus_offset, "#size-cells", 0x0)));
> > > +
> > > +    CPU_FOREACH(cs) {
> > > +        PowerPCCPU *cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cs);
> > > +        int index = ppc_get_vcpu_dt_id(cpu);
> > > +        DeviceClass *dc = DEVICE_GET_CLASS(cs);
> > > +        int offset;
> > > +
> > > +        if ((index % smt) != 0) {
> > > +            continue;
> > > +        }
> > > +
> > > +        nodename = g_strdup_printf("address@hidden", dc->fw_name, index);
> > > +        offset = fdt_add_subnode(fdt, cpus_offset, nodename);
> > > +        g_free(nodename);
> > > +        _FDT(offset);
> > > +        spapr_populate_cpu_dt(cs, fdt, offset);
> > > +    }
> > 
> > I can simply fix this by walking the CPUs in reverse order in the above
> > code which makes the guest kernel to discover the CPU DT nodes in the
> > right order.
> > 
> > s/CPU_FOREACH(cs)/CPU_FOREACH_REVERSE(cs) will solve this problem. Would 
> > this
> > be the right approach or should we just leave it to the guest kernel to
> > discover and enumerate CPUs in whatever order it finds the DT nodes in FDT ?
> 
> So using CPU_FOREACH_REVERSE(cs) appears to be right way to handle this.

Yes, I think so.  In theory it shouldn't matter, but I think it's
safer to retain the device tree order.

-- 
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

pgpuqAtelwetP.pgp
Description: PGP signature