On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:04:18PM -0800, Alistair Francis wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> After this patch (and the fix to TCG otherwise it seg faults) no one
> should use the has_rpu property. It is ignored and will print a
> message saying that it is ignored.
>
> Users should only use the -smp option now. So option 2 is the way to go.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
I just sent one small comment to the min_cpus/default_cpus patch
at [1], and I'm waiting for Richard's input on Emilio's TCG
fix[3].
[3] https://mid.mail-archive.com/20171106201332.GA2152@flamenco
>
> Thanks,
> Alistair
>
> >
> >
> > [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
--
Eduardo
