On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:59:39AM -0800, Alistair Francis wrote:
> Allow the -smp command line option to control the number of CPUs we
> create.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com>
> ---
>
> hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c | 3 ++-
> hw/arm/xlnx-zynqmp.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c b/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c
> index e2d15a1c9d..7ec03dad42 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c
> @@ -235,7 +235,8 @@ static void xlnx_zcu102_machine_class_init(ObjectClass
> *oc, void *data)
> {
> MachineClass *mc = MACHINE_CLASS(oc);
>
> - mc->desc = "Xilinx ZynqMP ZCU102 board";
> + mc->desc = "Xilinx ZynqMP ZCU102 board with 4xA53s and 2xR5s based on " \
> + "the value of smp";
> mc->init = xlnx_zcu102_init;
> mc->block_default_type = IF_IDE;
> mc->units_per_default_bus = 1;
> diff --git a/hw/arm/xlnx-zynqmp.c b/hw/arm/xlnx-zynqmp.c
> index d4b6560194..c707c66322 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/xlnx-zynqmp.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/xlnx-zynqmp.c
> @@ -98,8 +98,9 @@ static void xlnx_zynqmp_create_rpu(XlnxZynqMPState *s,
> const char *boot_cpu,
> {
> Error *err = NULL;
> int i;
> + int num_rpus = MIN(smp_cpus - XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS,
> XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_RPU_CPUS);
>
> - for (i = 0; i < XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_RPU_CPUS; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < num_rpus; i++) {
> char *name;
>
> object_initialize(&s->rpu_cpu[i], sizeof(s->rpu_cpu[i]),
> @@ -132,8 +133,9 @@ static void xlnx_zynqmp_init(Object *obj)
> {
> XlnxZynqMPState *s = XLNX_ZYNQMP(obj);
> int i;
> + int num_apus = MIN(smp_cpus, XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS);
>
> - for (i = 0; i < XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < num_apus; i++) {
> object_initialize(&s->apu_cpu[i], sizeof(s->apu_cpu[i]),
> "cortex-a53-" TYPE_ARM_CPU);
> object_property_add_child(obj, "apu-cpu[*]", OBJECT(&s->apu_cpu[i]),
> @@ -182,6 +184,7 @@ static void xlnx_zynqmp_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error
> **errp)
> MemoryRegion *system_memory = get_system_memory();
> uint8_t i;
> uint64_t ram_size;
> + int num_apus = MIN(smp_cpus, XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS);
> const char *boot_cpu = s->boot_cpu ? s->boot_cpu : "apu-cpu[0]";
> ram_addr_t ddr_low_size, ddr_high_size;
> qemu_irq gic_spi[GIC_NUM_SPI_INTR];
> @@ -233,10 +236,10 @@ static void xlnx_zynqmp_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error
> **errp)
>
> qdev_prop_set_uint32(DEVICE(&s->gic), "num-irq", GIC_NUM_SPI_INTR + 32);
> qdev_prop_set_uint32(DEVICE(&s->gic), "revision", 2);
> - qdev_prop_set_uint32(DEVICE(&s->gic), "num-cpu",
> XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS);
> + qdev_prop_set_uint32(DEVICE(&s->gic), "num-cpu", num_apus);
>
> /* Realize APUs before realizing the GIC. KVM requires this. */
> - for (i = 0; i < XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < num_apus; i++) {
> char *name;
>
> object_property_set_int(OBJECT(&s->apu_cpu[i]),
> QEMU_PSCI_CONDUIT_SMC,
> @@ -292,7 +295,7 @@ static void xlnx_zynqmp_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error
> **errp)
> }
> }
>
> - for (i = 0; i < XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < num_apus; i++) {
> qemu_irq irq;
>
> sysbus_connect_irq(SYS_BUS_DEVICE(&s->gic), i,
> @@ -307,11 +310,14 @@ static void xlnx_zynqmp_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error
> **errp)
> }
>
> if (s->has_rpu) {
> - xlnx_zynqmp_create_rpu(s, boot_cpu, &err);
> - if (err) {
> - error_propagate(errp, err);
> - return;
> - }
> + info_report("The 'has_rpu' property is no longer required, to use
> the "
> + "RPUs just use -smp 6.");
> + }
Is "-global driver=xlnx,,zynqmp,property=has_rpu,value=on"
without an explicit -smp option supposed to be a supported
configuration?
0) On current master, we have this:
$ ./aarch64-softmmu/qemu-system-aarch64 -machine xlnx-zcu102 -global
driver=xlnx,,zynqmp,property=has_rpu,value=on
**
ERROR:/home/ehabkost/rh/proj/virt/qemu/tcg/tcg.c:538:tcg_register_thread:
assertion failed: (n < max_cpus)
Aborted (core dumped)
1) With your patch we have this:
$ ./aarch64-softmmu/qemu-system-aarch64 -machine xlnx-zcu102 -global
driver=xlnx,,zynqmp,property=has_rpu,value=on -monitor stdio
QEMU 2.10.50 monitor - type 'help' for more information
(qemu) qemu-system-aarch64: info: The 'has_rpu' property is no longer
required, to use the RPUs just use -smp 6.
(qemu) info cpus
* CPU #0: thread_id=1662
(qemu)
2) With your patch plus Emilio's original min_cpus/default_cpus
proposal[1], we have this:
$ ./aarch64-softmmu/qemu-system-aarch64 -machine xlnx-zcu102 -global
driver=xlnx,,zynqmp,property=has_rpu,value=on -monitor stdio
QEMU 2.10.50 monitor - type 'help' for more information
(qemu) qemu-system-aarch64: info: The 'has_rpu' property is no longer
required, to use the RPUs just use -smp 6.
(qemu) info cpus
* CPU #0: thread_id=7112
CPU #1: (halted) thread_id=7113
CPU #2: (halted) thread_id=7114
CPU #3: (halted) thread_id=7115
(qemu)
3) With Emilio's max_additional_cpus proposal[2], we have this:
$ ./aarch64-softmmu/qemu-system-aarch64 -machine xlnx-zcu102 -global
driver=xlnx,,zynqmp,property=has_rpu,value=on -monitor stdio
QEMU 2.10.50 monitor - type 'help' for more information
(qemu) info cpus
* CPU #0: thread_id=4045
CPU #1: (halted) thread_id=4046
CPU #2: (halted) thread_id=4047
CPU #3: (halted) thread_id=4048
CPU #4: (halted) thread_id=4049
CPU #5: (halted) thread_id=4050
(qemu)
Which option is preferred? I like option #2 because it's
simpler, but I would like to confirm this is really the intended
behavior.
[1] 1509734853-3014-1-git-send-email-cota@braap.org">https://mid.mail-archive.com/1509734853-3014-1-git-send-email-cota@braap.org
[2] https://mid.mail-archive.com/20171106215454.GB2152@flamenco
> +
> + xlnx_zynqmp_create_rpu(s, boot_cpu, &err);
> + if (err) {
> + error_propagate(errp, err);
> + return;
> }
>
> if (!s->boot_cpu_ptr) {
> --
> 2.11.0
>
--
Eduardo
