From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] docs: add a table showing x86-64 ABI compatibility levels
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:19:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210201171912.GO4131462@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-yzX1ZSPayvy9u8GUbXpgLgQNA7=52qSnDMjakSU0B-Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 04:53:03PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 15:39, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is useful to know which CPUs satisfy each x86-64 ABI
> > compatibility level, when dealing with guest OS that require
> > something newer than the baseline ABI.
> >
> > These ABI levels are defined in:
> >
> > https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/
> >
> > and supported by GCC, CLang, GLibC and more.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> > +ABI compatibility levels for CPU models
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > +
> > +The x86_64 architecture has a number of `ABI compatibility levels`_
> > +defined. Traditionally most operating systems and toolchains would
> > +only target the original baseline ABI. It is expected that in
> > +future OS and toolchains are likely to target newer ABIs. The
> > +following table illustrates which ABI compatibility levels can be
> > +satisfied by the QEMU CPU models
> > +
> > +.. _ABI compatibility levels: https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/
> > +
> > +.. csv-table:: x86-64 ABI compatibility levels
> > + :file: cpu-models-x86-abi.csv
> > + :widths: 40,15,15,15,15
> > + :header-rows: 1
>
> Apart from the QEMU/KVM specific CPU models, why is this something
> we should be documenting rather than, say, the people specifying
> what the ABI compatiblity levels are ?
QEMU's named CPU models are not a perfect match for features in the
real world silicon. So even if someone has a Skylake Server CPU with
feature X, this doesn't mean QEMU's definition of the Skylake-Server
CPU model is guaranteed to have feature X. So we want to document
the compatibility of the exact CPU models that QEMU has defined.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-01 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-01 15:36 [PATCH RFC 0/4] target/i386/cpu: introduce new CPU models for x86-64 ABI levels Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 15:36 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] docs: add a table showing x86-64 ABI compatibility levels Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 16:33 ` Florian Weimer
2021-02-01 17:17 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 16:53 ` Peter Maydell
2021-02-01 17:19 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2021-02-02 9:06 ` Florian Weimer
2021-02-01 18:28 ` Eduardo Habkost
2021-02-02 12:24 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-02 9:41 ` David Edmondson
2021-02-02 12:23 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-02 12:43 ` David Edmondson
2021-02-01 15:36 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] target/i386: define CPU models to model x86-64 ABI levels Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-02 9:46 ` David Edmondson
2021-02-02 12:32 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-02 12:50 ` David Edmondson
2021-02-02 12:54 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 15:36 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] NOT FOR MERGE target/i386: use x86-64-abi1 CPU model as default on x86_64 Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 15:36 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] NOT FOR MERGE: script for CPU model stuff related to x86-64 ABI levels Daniel P. Berrangé
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210201171912.GO4131462@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=crosa@redhat.com \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.