[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?
From: |
Claudio Fontana |
Subject: |
Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible? |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:16:52 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 |
On 3/11/21 5:18 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/03/21 16:02, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 14:27, Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote:
>>> the "max" cpu in x86 and s390 is a class,
>>>
>>> and then "host" has "max" as parent.
>>>
>>> This would be a convenient setup for ARM too, as it would allow to put
>>> common code between kvm and tcg in the "max" class,
>>> and allow "host" to specialize the behavior for KVM (and in the future HVF
>>> probably).
>>>
>>> Would changing the class hierarchy this way be acceptable, cause any
>>> problems?
>>
>> It's not clear to me why 'host' would be a subtype of 'max':
>> that doesn't seem like an obvious relationship.
>
> On x86, "-cpu host" is essentially the same as "-cpu max" with the only
> difference that it errors out on TCG. So:
>
> - with TCG: "-cpu max" enables all that can be emulated, "-cpu host" fails
>
> - with KVM: "-cpu max" enables all that can be virtualized, "-cpu host"
> does the same
>
> Paolo
>
Maybe Peter you could clarify similarly what the intended meaning of "max" is
on ARM?
TCG: for aarch64, the starting point seems to be Cortex-A57, and then lots of
other features are added on top of it,
and for non-aarch64, the starting point seems to be Cortex-A15, plus "old-style
VFP short-vector support".
Is the intention to enable all that can be emulated here too, like for X86?
KVM: (aarch64-only): aarch64_max_initfn():
The following comment in the code seems wrong to me:
/* -cpu max: if KVM is enabled, like -cpu host (best possible with this host);
*/
This is not exactly true:
"-cpu max" calls kvm_arm_set_cpu_features_from_host(), (which checks
"dtb_compatible", and if not set gets the features from the host, if set ...?)
After that, calls aarch64_add_sve_properties() and then adds also "svw-max-vq".
This code is common with TCG.
In the case of cpu host instead,
"-cpu host" calls kvm_arm_set_cpu_features_from_host(), same as max, then calls
aarch64_add_sve_properties() but does NOT add "svw-max-vq".
Is this a bug?
Are "max" and "host" for KVM supposed to be the same like with x86?
Thanks,
Claudio
- arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Peter Maydell, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Paolo Bonzini, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?,
Claudio Fontana <=
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Eduardo Habkost, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Peter Maydell, 2021/03/11
- Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?, Andrew Jones, 2021/03/11
- arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Andrew Jones, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Andrew Jones, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Eduardo Habkost, 2021/03/18
- Re: arm_cpu_post_init (Was: Re: arm: "max" CPU class hierarchy changes possible?), Claudio Fontana, 2021/03/19