On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 08:51, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> From: Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com>
>
> Allow cpu 'host' to enable SVE when it's available, unless the
> user chooses to disable it with the added 'sve=off' cpu property.
> Also give the user the ability to select vector lengths with the
> sve<N> properties. We don't adopt 'max' cpu's other sve property,
> sve-max-vq, because that property is difficult to use with KVM.
> That property assumes all vector lengths in the range from 1 up
> to and including the specified maximum length are supported, but
> there may be optional lengths not supported by the host in that
> range. With KVM one must be more specific when enabling vector
> lengths.
Hi; I've been looking at the '-cpu max' vs '-cpu host' code
as part of trying to sort out the 'hvf' accelerator doing
oddly different things with them. I noticed an oddity
introduced in this patch. In the commit message you say that
we deliberately leave the 'sve-max-vq' property out of the
new aarch64_add_sve_properties(), because it is difficult to
use with KVM. But in the code for handling '-cpu max' in
aarch64_max_initfn():
> @@ -602,17 +617,11 @@ static void cpu_arm_set_sve(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
> const char *name,
> static void aarch64_max_initfn(Object *obj)
> {
> ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(obj);
> - uint32_t vq;
> - uint64_t t;
>
> if (kvm_enabled()) {
> kvm_arm_set_cpu_features_from_host(cpu);
> - if (kvm_arm_sve_supported(CPU(cpu))) {
> - t = cpu->isar.id_aa64pfr0;
> - t = FIELD_DP64(t, ID_AA64PFR0, SVE, 1);
> - cpu->isar.id_aa64pfr0 = t;
> - }
because this 'if' doesn't exit the function early...
> } else {
> + uint64_t t;
> uint32_t u;
> aarch64_a57_initfn(obj);
>
> @@ -712,17 +721,9 @@ static void aarch64_max_initfn(Object *obj)
> #endif
> }
...all this code at the tail of the function runs for both KVM
and TCG, and it still sets the sve-max-vq property, even for
using '-cpu max' with KVM.
> - object_property_add(obj, "sve", "bool", cpu_arm_get_sve,
> - cpu_arm_set_sve, NULL, NULL, &error_fatal);
> + aarch64_add_sve_properties(obj);
> object_property_add(obj, "sve-max-vq", "uint32", cpu_max_get_sve_max_vq,
> cpu_max_set_sve_max_vq, NULL, NULL, &error_fatal);
> -
> - for (vq = 1; vq <= ARM_MAX_VQ; ++vq) {
> - char name[8];
> - sprintf(name, "sve%d", vq * 128);
> - object_property_add(obj, name, "bool", cpu_arm_get_sve_vq,
> - cpu_arm_set_sve_vq, NULL, NULL, &error_fatal);
> - }
> }
Was this intentional?
I'd like to fix up the weird divergence between -cpu host and
-cpu max, either by moving sve-max-vq into aarch64_add_sve_properties()
so it's present on both, or by changing the aarch64_max_initfn() so
it only adds the property when using TCG.
(I think also this code may get the '-cpu max,aarch64=off' case wrong,
as it doesn't guard the calls to add the sve and pauth properties
with the "if aarch64" feature check.)
thanks
-- PMM
