On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 04:39:46PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 13:04:26 -0200
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:47:28PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > on x86 currently range 0..max_cpus is used to generate
> > > architecture-dependent CPU ID (APIC Id) for each present
> > > and possible CPUs. However architecture-dependent CPU IDs
> > > list could be sparse and code that needs to enumerate
> > > all IDs (ACPI) ended up doing guess work enumerating all
> > > possible and impossible IDs up to
> > > apic_id_limit = x86_cpu_apic_id_from_index(max_cpus).
> > >
> > > That leads to creation of MADT entries and Processor
> > > objects in ACPI tables for not possible CPUs.
> > > Fix it by allowing board specify a concrete list of
> > > CPU IDs accourding its own rules (which for x86 depends
> > > on topology). So that code that needs this list could
> > > request it from board instead of trying to figure out
> > > what IDs are correct on its own.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > hw/i386/pc.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> > > include/hw/boards.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
> > > index d72246d..2fd8fc8 100644
> > > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
> > > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
> > > @@ -1946,6 +1946,21 @@ static unsigned pc_cpu_index_to_socket_id(unsigned
> > > cpu_index)
> > > return topo.pkg_id;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static GArray *pc_possible_cpu_arch_ids(void)
> > > +{
> > > + int i;
> > > + GArray *list = g_array_new (FALSE, FALSE, sizeof (CPUArchId));
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
> > > + CPUArchId val;
> > > +
> > > + val.arch_id = x86_cpu_apic_id_from_index(i);
> > > + val.cpu = qemu_get_cpu_by_arch_id(val.arch_id);
> > > + g_array_append_val(list, val);
> >
> > What about letting callers call qemu_get_cpu_by_arch_id() only if
> > they really need it?
> >
> > If you do that, you just need to return an uint64_t array, and
> > there's no need for struct CPUArchId.
> So far all callers that would use it would need to call
> qemu_get_cpu_by_arch_id() so doing it in one place (here)
> seems better than to duplicating that call over the code.
I see only one place using CPUArchId.cpu. All other callers don't
use the field.
Simply replacing "id.cpu" with "qemu_get_cpu_by_arch_id(id)" in
one line seems worth it, if it's going to save us the trouble of
defining another struct and avoid lots of unnecessary calls to
qemu_get_cpu_by_arch_id() (that loops through all CPUs every time
it's called).
--
Eduardo
