On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 02:03:10PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:39:02PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 07:05:52PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > ppc machine init functions create individual CPU threads. Change this
> > > for sPAPR by switching to socket creation. CPUs are created recursively
> > > by socket and core instance init routines.
> > >
> > > TODO: Switching to socket level CPU creation is done only for sPAPR
> > > target now.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > hw/ppc/cpu-core.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > > hw/ppc/cpu-socket.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> > > target-ppc/cpu.h | 1 +
> > > target-ppc/translate_init.c | 46
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 5 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/cpu-core.c b/hw/ppc/cpu-core.c
> > > index ed0481f..f60646d 100644
> > > --- a/hw/ppc/cpu-core.c
> > > +++ b/hw/ppc/cpu-core.c
> > > @@ -7,6 +7,8 @@
> > >
> > > #include "hw/qdev.h"
> > > #include "hw/ppc/cpu-core.h"
> > > +#include "hw/boards.h"
> > > +#include <sysemu/cpus.h>
> > >
> > > static int ppc_cpu_core_realize_child(Object *child, void *opaque)
> > > {
> > > @@ -32,10 +34,25 @@ static void ppc_cpu_core_class_init(ObjectClass *oc,
> > > void *data)
> > > dc->realize = ppc_cpu_core_realize;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void ppc_cpu_core_instance_init(Object *obj)
> > > +{
> > > + int i;
> > > + PowerPCCPU *cpu = NULL;
> > > + MachineState *machine = MACHINE(qdev_get_machine());
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < smp_threads; i++) {
> > > + cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cpu_ppc_create(TYPE_POWERPC_CPU,
> > > machine->cpu_model));
> > > + object_property_add_child(obj, "thread[*]", OBJECT(cpu),
> > > &error_abort);
> > > + object_unref(OBJECT(cpu));
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static const TypeInfo ppc_cpu_core_type_info = {
> > > .name = TYPE_POWERPC_CPU_CORE,
> > > .parent = TYPE_DEVICE,
> > > .class_init = ppc_cpu_core_class_init,
> > > + .instance_init = ppc_cpu_core_instance_init,
> > > + .instance_size = sizeof(PowerPCCPUCore),
> >
> > The PowerPCCPUCore structure isn't defined in this patch (I assume it
> > already existed), which suggests that setting the instance_size should
> > have already been in an earlier patch.
>
> PowerPCCPUCore is already defined, but I put the instance_size here
> since I needed instance_init only here. I thought it is better to
> have instance_init and instance_size populated together.
Hm, yes, it does make sense to declare instance_init and instance_size
together. It also makes sense to declare instance_size and the
associated type together.
Maybe folding this together with patch 8/23 would make sense?
> > > };
> > >
> > > static void ppc_cpu_core_register_types(void)
> > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/cpu-socket.c b/hw/ppc/cpu-socket.c
> > > index 602a060..f901336 100644
> > > --- a/hw/ppc/cpu-socket.c
> > > +++ b/hw/ppc/cpu-socket.c
> > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > > #include "hw/qdev.h"
> > > #include "hw/ppc/cpu-socket.h"
> > > #include "sysemu/cpus.h"
> > > +#include "cpu.h"
> > >
> > > static int ppc_cpu_socket_realize_child(Object *child, void *opaque)
> > > {
> > > @@ -33,10 +34,24 @@ static void ppc_cpu_socket_class_init(ObjectClass
> > > *oc, void *data)
> > > dc->realize = ppc_cpu_socket_realize;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void ppc_cpu_socket_instance_init(Object *obj)
> > > +{
> > > + int i;
> > > + Object *core;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < smp_cores; i++) {
> > > + core = object_new(TYPE_POWERPC_CPU_CORE);
> > > + object_property_add_child(obj, "core[*]", core, &error_abort);
> > > + object_unref(core);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static const TypeInfo ppc_cpu_socket_type_info = {
> > > .name = TYPE_POWERPC_CPU_SOCKET,
> > > .parent = TYPE_CPU_SOCKET,
> > > .class_init = ppc_cpu_socket_class_init,
> > > + .instance_init = ppc_cpu_socket_instance_init,
> > > + .instance_size = sizeof(PowerPCCPUSocket),
> >
> > Likewise for PowerPCCPUSocket.
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * This is essentially same as cpu_generic_init() but without a set
> > > + * realize call.
> > > + */
> >
> > In which case it would probably make more sense to have this be a
> > generic function, and implement cpu_generic_init() in terms of it.
>
> Actually multiple people are touching that part of the code, I so I
> figured it will be a bit easier for now to contain the changes within ppc.
> But yes, eventually we should do what you are suggesting.
Ok.
--
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
pgpbsWqmGWAKc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
