On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 12:11:12PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 03:24:13PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 08:20:23PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > Conditonally set stable_cpu_id for CPU threads that are created as part
> > > of spapr CPU cores. The use of stable_cpu_id is enabled for pseries-2.7
> > > onwards.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 7 +++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c
> > > index b104778..0ec3513 100644
> > > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c
> > > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c
> > > @@ -293,8 +293,15 @@ static void spapr_cpu_core_realize(DeviceState *dev,
> > > Error **errp)
> > > for (i = 0; i < cc->nr_threads; i++) {
> > > char id[32];
> > > obj = sc->threads + i * size;
> > > + CPUState *cs;
> > >
> > > object_initialize(obj, size, typename);
> > > + cs = CPU(obj);
> > > +
> > > + /* Use core_id (which is actually cpu_dt_id) as stable CPU id */
> > > + if (cs->has_stable_cpu_id) {
> > > + cs->stable_cpu_id = cc->core_id + i;
> > > + }
> >
> > Testing cs->has_stable_cpu_id here in machine type specific code seems
> > really weird. It's the machine type that knows whether it has a
> > stable ID to give to the CPU or not, rather than the other way around.
> >
> > Since we haven't yet had a release with cpu cores, I think the right
> > thing is for cpu_core to unconditionally set the stable ID (and set
> > has_stable_id to true).
>
> Right, we can set cpu_stable_id unconditionally here since this code path
> (core realize) will be taken only for pseries-2.7 onwards. has_stable_id
> will get set as part of the property we defined in SPAPR_COMPAT_2_7.
Hrm, that's true. But when you describe it like that it sounds like a
really non-obvious and fragile dependency between different components.
> > The backup path that does thread-based cpu
> > init, can set has_stable_id to false (if that's not the default).
>
> Default is off, but turning it on for 2.7 will be inherited by 2.6
> and others below. Hence I have code to explicitly disable this prop
> for 2.6 and below via SPAPR_COMPAT_2_6.
This is all seeming terribly awkward. Can we try investigating a
different approach:
1. Rename cpu_index to cpu_id, but it's still used in the same
places it's used.
2. Remove assumptions that cpu_id values are contiguous or
dense
3. Machine type decides whether it wants to populate the cpu_id
values explicitly, or leave it to generic code to calculate
them as cpu_index is calculated now.
4. Ideally, generic code enforces that the machine type populates
either all or none of the cpu_id values.
Does that seem workable?
--
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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
