On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:33:30 -0300 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:25:59PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:10:27 -0300 > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:43:41 -0300 > > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:53:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:54:34 -0300 > > > > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:20:46 +0200 > > > > > > > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Il 03/10/2012 17:03, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:38:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> (Now replying on the right thread, to keep the > > > > > > > > > >> discussion in the right place. I don't know how I ended > > > > > > > > > >> up replying to a pre-historic version of the patch, > > > > > > > > > >> sorry.) > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:36:59PM +0200, Igor Mammedov > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: [...] > > > > > > > > > >>> @@ -1938,6 +2043,12 @@ static void x86_cpu_initfn(Object > > > > > > > > > >>> *obj) object_property_add(obj, "tsc-frequency", "int", > > > > > > > > > >>> x86_cpuid_get_tsc_freq, > > > > > > > > > >>> x86_cpuid_set_tsc_freq, NULL, > > > > > > > > > >>> NULL, NULL); > > > > > > > > > >>> + x86_register_cpuid_properties(obj, feature_name); > > > > > > > > > >>> + x86_register_cpuid_properties(obj, > > > > > > > > > >>> ext_feature_name); > > > > > > > > > >>> + x86_register_cpuid_properties(obj, > > > > > > > > > >>> ext2_feature_name); > > > > > > > > > >>> + x86_register_cpuid_properties(obj, > > > > > > > > > >>> ext3_feature_name); > > > > > > > > > >>> + x86_register_cpuid_properties(obj, > > > > > > > > > >>> kvm_feature_name); > > > > > > > > > >>> + x86_register_cpuid_properties(obj, > > > > > > > > > >>> svm_feature_name); > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Stupid question about qdev: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> - qdev_prop_set_globals() is called from device_initfn() > > > > > > > > > >> - device_initfn() is called before the child class > > > > > > > > > >> instance_init() function (x86_cpu_initfn()) > > > > > > > > > >> - So, qdev_prop_set_globals() gets called before the CPU > > > > > > > > > >> class properties are registered. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> So this would defeat the whole point of all the work > > > > > > > > > >> we're doing, that is to allow compatibility bits to be > > > > > > > > > >> set as machine-type global properties. But I don't know > > > > > > > > > >> what's the right solution here. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Should the qdev_prop_set_globals() call be moved to > > > > > > > > > >> qdev_init() instead? Should the CPU properties be > > > > > > > > > >> registered somewhere else? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Properties should be registered (for all objects, not just > > > > > > > > > CPUs) in the instance_init function. This is device_initfn. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would add an instance_postinit function that is called at > > > > > > > > > the end of object_initialize_with_type, that is after > > > > > > > > > instance_init, and in the opposite order (i.e. from the > > > > > > > > > leaf to the root). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You've meant something like that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's almost exactly the same code I wrote here. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only difference is that I added post_init to the struct > > > > > > > Object documentation comments, and added a unit test. The unit > > > > > > > test required the qdev-core/qdev split, so we could compile it > > > > > > > without bringing too many dependencies. I will submit it soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > After irc discussion, Anthony suggested to use static properties > > > > > > instead of dynamic ones that we use now. > > > > > > > > > > > > But qdev_prop_set_globals() in device_initfn() is still causes > > > > > > problems even with static properties. > > > > > > > > > > > > For x86 CPU classes we were going dynamically generate CPU > > > > > > classes and store pointer to appropriate cpudef from > > > > > > builtin_x86_defs in class field for each CPU class and then init > > > > > > default feature words values from this field int x86_cpu_initfn(). > > > > > > > > > > > > However with qdev_prop_set_globals() in device_initfn() that is > > > > > > called before x86_cpu_initfn() it won't work because defaults in > > > > > > x86_cpu_initfn() will overwrite whatever was set by > > > > > > qdev_prop_set_globals(). > > > > > > > > > > We can set the default values on class_init, instead. The class_init > > > > > function for each CPU model can get the x86_def_t struct as the data > > > > > pointer. > > > > > > > > > > I still think that the interface to build the DeviceClass.props > > > > > array on class_init is really painful to use, but it's still doable. > > > > > > > > You mean dynamic building of DeviceClass.props arrays for each CPU > > > > sub-class? > > > > > > That's the only solution I see if we want to make all the CPU properties > > > static, yes. > > > > Well I could generate compile time arrays for every built-in cpu model > > and we can remove then x86_def_t struct & builtins altogether. > > Only 'host' would be left for dynamic generation then. > > You mean duplicating the property list in the code? Then the > feature-name -> CPUID-bit mapping information would be duplicated on all > those arrays, and adding support to a new CPU feature would require > adding entries to all the arrays. Not to all arrays, but only to ones which cpumodel-s support specific feature. Here is possible ups&downs this: + full introspection, including default cpu features values. -/+ it would be possible to represent cpumodel more faithfully, i.e. include only features that specific cpu supports. (so no AVX=on in 486 model), not sure if it is plus but it would more like real hw. - a lot of lines of code , but it could be dealt with extra macros, so resulting arrays could look like built-in now (if we add feature there we anyway should replicate it other relevant builtins). + maybe generating only "host"'s DeviceClass.props could be simplier. And then for builtin models I could make a series static CPU classes that would use this arrays. > > > > > > > > > I'm still not convinced we really need to do that, though. Maybe we can > > > make static only the ones we really need to be able to implement > > > machine-type-compatibility global properties? > > > > > > Machine-type compatibility global properties were the initial reason for > > > the static-properties requirement. We don't really need to allow _all_ > > > CPU features to be controlled by global properties, only the ones we > > > need for machine-type compatibility. > > > > > >
