On 18/11/2025 4:53 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 18.11.2025 16:30, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 18/11/2025 3:06 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h
>>> @@ -121,7 +121,31 @@ struct cpu_policy
>>> uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x3 - PSN. */
>>> uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x4 - Structured Cache. */
>>> uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x5 - MONITOR. */
>>> - uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x6 - Therm/Perf. */
>>> +
>>> + /* Leaf 0x6 - Therm/Perf. */
>>> + struct {
>>> + uint32_t /* a */:1,
>>> + turbo:1,
>>> + arat:1,
>>> + :4,
>>> + hwp:1,
>>> + hwp_notification:1,
>>> + hwp_activity_window:1,
>>> + hwp_epp:1,
>>> + hwp_plr:1,
>>> + :1,
>>> + hdc:1,
>>> + :2,
>>> + hwp_peci:1,
>>> + :2,
>>> + hw_feedback:1,
>>> + :12;
>>> + uint32_t /* b */:32;
>>> + uint32_t /* c */ aperfmperf:1,
>>> + :31;
>>> + uint32_t /* d */:32;
>> Elsewhere, single bit fields are bool foo:1, and these want to match for
>> consistency.
> Oh, yes, will change.
>
>> In particular using uint32_t:1 creates a latent bug in
>> patch 8.
> I don't see where that would be.
In the printf. %d vs %u. Latent because it's ok until bit 31 gets
used, and then it's not ok.
>
>> One problem with bool bitfields is that your :4 needs to become 4x :1.
>> Right now his hidden in the macros that gen-cpuid.py makes.
>>
>> Given that b is of type uint32_t, you can omit the :12 from the end of a
>> and leave a comment. Similarly, the trailing :31 on c can be dropped.
> We have these in many other places, and omitting in particular the :31
> would also feel somewhat fragile / misleading. It'll need to be
>
> bool /* c */ aperfmperf:1;
> uint32_t :31;
>
> or something along these lines.
This doesn't work. A gap of 31 bits gets inserted because of uint32_t's
alignment, which is why the suggestion to ignore it does work (even if
fragile).
I suggest a /* 31 spare bits */ comment, because the only other option
is 31x :1's.
>
>>> + } pm;
>> Nothing else is sub-scoped. I'd prefer that you drop the 'pm'.
> Wouldn't that require the use of the very extension you just talked about
> at the committer's call?
No. It would just be a plain anonymous struct in this case, but it
doesn't even need to be a struct.
leaf 0,2,10 are all "top level" insofar as they're all inside .basic.
leaf 1 only has anonymous unions to join the the bitfield names and the
field-wide name.
~Andrew
