On 02/26/2015 05:35 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Hi,
Am 25.02.2015 um 10:58 schrieb Chen Fan:
On 02/25/2015 12:56 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 24.02.2015 um 02:25 schrieb Gu Zheng:
The issues you commented in the previous version have been fixed in
this one.
What I have repeatedly rejected is "device_add foo-x86_64-cpu". This is
still in 00/10 and 09/10. Most of the actual changes however do look to
be going in the right direction of making 'realize' work as expected for
foo-x86_64-cpu.
As for the socket-based device_add I mentioned, I had pushed a work
branch qom-cpu-x86 and had some off-list discussions for some of the
other architectures but did not submit it as an RFC yet. What I am still
working on is dynamic properties to allocate cores (threads TBD) for
"device_add x86_64-cpu-socket,cores=n".
Can you explain all your thoughts about cpu hotplug feature with
socket-based,
or how goals do you want to see?
Basically I am implementing Anthony's suggestion from a year or two
back, that is moving towards using real building blocks such as
Xeon-E5-4242 as shortcut for a 6-core, 2-HT device, ultimately replacing
-cpu. Think of what can be plugged in real servers - a socket is atomic
in reality, you can't add cores or hyperthreads dynamically. And the QOM
realize model then forces me to use child<> properties inside the socket
object for consistent recursive processing.
yes, I agree with you.
but the existed command 'cpu-add' is adding one logic processor each time.
it will cause compatibility with the socket-based cpu device. and what
do you think to solve this problem ?
Thanks,
Chen
Regards,
Andreas
and what is the status of "device_add x86_64-cpu-socket" ?
after that, I think we can do somethings to help you to achieve your ideas.
Thanks,
Chen
Could you please help to review it?
Will get to it Friday earliest.
Regards,
Andreas
