On 12/9/20 7:30 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de> writes:
>
>> On 12/9/20 1:54 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>
>>> Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> centralize the registration of the cpus.c module
>>>> accelerator operations in accel/accel-softmmu.c
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de>
>>> <snip>
>>>> diff --git a/accel/tcg/tcg-cpus.c b/accel/tcg/tcg-cpus.c
>>>> index e335f9f155..38a58ab271 100644
>>>> --- a/accel/tcg/tcg-cpus.c
>>>> +++ b/accel/tcg/tcg-cpus.c
>>>> @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@
>>>> #include "hw/boards.h"
>>>>
>>>> #include "tcg-cpus.h"
>>>> +#include "tcg-cpus-mttcg.h"
>>>> +#include "tcg-cpus-rr.h"
>>>> +#include "tcg-cpus-icount.h"
>>>>
>>>> /* common functionality among all TCG variants */
>>>>
>>>> @@ -80,3 +83,43 @@ void tcg_cpus_handle_interrupt(CPUState *cpu, int mask)
>>>> qatomic_set(&cpu_neg(cpu)->icount_decr.u16.high, -1);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>> +static void tcg_cpus_ops_init(AccelOpsClass *ops)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (qemu_tcg_mttcg_enabled()) {
>>>> + ops->create_vcpu_thread = mttcg_start_vcpu_thread;
>>>> + ops->kick_vcpu_thread = mttcg_kick_vcpu_thread;
>>>> + ops->handle_interrupt = tcg_cpus_handle_interrupt;
>>>> +
>>>> + } else if (icount_enabled()) {
>>>> + ops->create_vcpu_thread = rr_start_vcpu_thread;
>>>> + ops->kick_vcpu_thread = rr_kick_vcpu_thread;
>>>> + ops->handle_interrupt = icount_handle_interrupt;
>>>> + ops->get_virtual_clock = icount_get;
>>>> + ops->get_elapsed_ticks = icount_get;
>>>> +
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + ops->create_vcpu_thread = rr_start_vcpu_thread;
>>>> + ops->kick_vcpu_thread = rr_kick_vcpu_thread;
>>>> + ops->handle_interrupt = tcg_cpus_handle_interrupt;
>>>> + }
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Aren't we going backwards here by having a global function aware of the
>>> different accelerator types rather than encapsulating this is the
>>> particular accelerator machinery?
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>
>> Now I got your point.
>>
>> The ideal would be to have three classes. One called tcg-mttcg, one
>> tcg-icount, one tcg-rr.
>> The problem: backward compatibility I think, since currently we have only
>> one accel, "tcg".
>>
>> But, hmm maybe fixable, I'll take a look.
>
> Yeah I was wondering if we were going to have subclasses for each "type"
> of TCG. But now I'm wondering if that even makes sense. Will we ever
> want to built a TCG enabled binary that say doesn't do icount? Maybe
> not - having a single AccelOpsClass which runs in 3 modes will probably
> do for now.
Ok, I think you have a point there, so if you find a way we could subclass and
not break backward compatibility in a non-super-convoluted way,
I am all ears, thanks a lot!
Ciao,
Claudio
