From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96FE9C54798 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:52:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rev40-0007OQ-Fo; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 05:51:56 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rev3x-0007Nj-QL; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 05:51:53 -0500 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com ([185.176.79.56]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rev3v-0002n3-EP; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 05:51:53 -0500 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TkZ1V5Kwjz6J9xv; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:47:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0695A140F4E; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:51:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:51:46 +0000 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:51:45 +0000 To: Zhao Liu CC: "Daniel P . =?UTF-8?Q?Berrang=EF=BF=BD?=" , "Eduardo Habkost" , Marcel Apfelbaum , Philippe =?UTF-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=EF=BF=BD?= , Yanan Wang , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Paolo Bonzini , "Richard Henderson" , Eric Blake , Markus Armbruster , Marcelo Tosatti , Alex =?UTF-8?Q?Benn=EF=BF=BDe?= , Peter Maydell , "Sia Jee Heng" , , , , , "Zhenyu Wang" , Dapeng Mi , Yongwei Ma , Zhao Liu Subject: Re: [RFC 4/8] hw/core: Add cache topology options in -smp Message-ID: <20240227105145.0000106d@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20240220092504.726064-1-zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com> <20240220092504.726064-5-zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com> <20240226153947.00006fd6@Huawei.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.202.227.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.78) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.176.79.56; envelope-from=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-riscv@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-to: Jonathan Cameron From: Jonathan Cameron via Errors-To: qemu-riscv-bounces+qemu-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-riscv-bounces+qemu-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:20:25 +0800 Zhao Liu wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > > Hi Zhao Liu > > > > I like the scheme. Strikes a good balance between complexity of description > > and systems that actually exist. Sure there are systems with more cache > > levels etc but they are rare and support can be easily added later > > if people want to model them. > > Thanks for your support! > > [snip] > > > > +static int smp_cache_string_to_topology(MachineState *ms, > > > > Not a good name for a function that does rather more than that. > > What about "smp_cache_get_valid_topology()"? Looking again, could we return the CPUTopoLevel? I think returning CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID will replace -1/0 returns and this can just be smp_cache_string_to_topology() as you have it in this version. The check on the return value becomes a little more more complex and I think you want to squash CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_MAX down so we only have one invalid value to check at callers.. E.g. static CPUTopoLevel smp_cache_string_to_topolgy(MachineState *ms, char *top_str, Error **errp) { CPUTopoLevel topo = string_to_cpu_topo(topo_str); if (topo == CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_MAX || topo == CPU_TOP?O_LEVEL_INVALID) { return CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID; } if (!machine_check_topo_support(ms, topo) { error_setg(errp, "Invalid cache topology level: %s. " "The cache topology should match the CPU topology level", //Break string like this to make it as grep-able as possible! topo_str); return CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID; } return topo; } The checks then become != CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID at each callsite. Jonathan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 2002:a17:906:e92:b0:a3e:79c1:d636 with SMTP id p18csp2592702ejf; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:51:49 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCWnRMYioceTMWFLx4F9MK37FNfs5ZbdMz/t3OvB5dr1ARqg+XadV3KztJv8vFKKGePM53lvxcoTXwdfTcHJrBfg8OTKnuK8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE6AmEaqNDJmUIGuPSR3xVdwTUivvJ53RLIOZ8w4wP3betp2HSVnpLm5iZe8XtwBNtHbxGW X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5191:b0:412:a852:78a1 with SMTP id fa17-20020a05600c519100b00412a85278a1mr2738684wmb.0.1709031109060; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:51:49 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1709031109; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Tv7f4xMSTL4NnkonP3kCvIptIf8bZ1Nt7sUiR0BYEpobfi9NOtxc2fMHv8tKLdWozQ XsKUQlqEovxrJFCRl+Bg1ikQvX1DQITxaQKlAWldZ/LCVQ8/Gs/R4d4ErLCLckY466uM wMGg0tuzrvDG+2O8cdHjLMVN8QG8C0vMjadb7+a3CMjvCPmiHegvfBNF6WZK216xNIvr 7LfZSAL1/5uq0H93Sv1J9Dms52yvba/gX3q79ATmVxQCGnOwiNL4IwXI2bhvFs/03503 NgNr3kPzx+DD8ofd5KoZUUH45f3qFmve6F2sEHlhtank9IisWMbfSxjj1a8LqeSgFxmb K1qw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:organization:references :in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=1j8mYprm4NSXrebBTkMtq/4w1PKjiq0YEBas9xgHgxQ=; fh=KFxkXD2Jg0b3l6oSFBvGAJpFB/FvbhxzDjrYzmIHGN4=; b=QlK/Pt973B5yN3pJH0mCT1hjxGqW8yKDbNWAE08KU3Ln0jJ1p9s0q7xAW7mbw81XDb 6Jc+bz0yDSNIOMXKEMas3oHK/bIBTUQ8rVkJalFvvyOcso3UaGVPsqfCYcuSIWlaHu/U G8De1y62bhvrKj4fscyACYec2VZh16+71+CH9ZTWTM+LI+oCI8fux2DJgAWPbmQK8tbY ZSBmyu5bwBwtwhvpe52Hsgo7pfXtnRyD+esOKwfcrVW6LLFl2yc/pADJf2D6ICS1hZkz f+uZsiyNgXmmWDtWDBRhupt1hTfTaJN9Dw4hLcJ3KIYfLKBizVJ3bYNiSjHWFtp9IMsz XJjg==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jonathan.cameron@huawei.com designates 185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Return-Path: Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com. [185.176.79.56]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q7-20020a5d6587000000b0033d927e7b1csi3574879wru.723.2024.02.27.02.51.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:51:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jonathan.cameron@huawei.com designates 185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) client-ip=185.176.79.56; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jonathan.cameron@huawei.com designates 185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TkZ1V5Kwjz6J9xv; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:47:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0695A140F4E; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:51:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:51:46 +0000 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:51:45 +0000 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Zhao Liu CC: "Daniel P . =?UTF-8?Q?Berrang=EF=BF=BD?=" , "Eduardo Habkost" , Marcel Apfelbaum , Philippe =?UTF-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=EF=BF=BD?= , Yanan Wang , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Paolo Bonzini , "Richard Henderson" , Eric Blake , Markus Armbruster , Marcelo Tosatti , Alex =?UTF-8?Q?Benn=EF=BF=BDe?= , Peter Maydell , "Sia Jee Heng" , , , , , "Zhenyu Wang" , Dapeng Mi , Yongwei Ma , Zhao Liu Subject: Re: [RFC 4/8] hw/core: Add cache topology options in -smp Message-ID: <20240227105145.0000106d@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20240220092504.726064-1-zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com> <20240220092504.726064-5-zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com> <20240226153947.00006fd6@Huawei.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.202.227.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.78) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) X-TUID: mV5yURDV7xJU On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:20:25 +0800 Zhao Liu wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > > Hi Zhao Liu > > > > I like the scheme. Strikes a good balance between complexity of description > > and systems that actually exist. Sure there are systems with more cache > > levels etc but they are rare and support can be easily added later > > if people want to model them. > > Thanks for your support! > > [snip] > > > > +static int smp_cache_string_to_topology(MachineState *ms, > > > > Not a good name for a function that does rather more than that. > > What about "smp_cache_get_valid_topology()"? Looking again, could we return the CPUTopoLevel? I think returning CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID will replace -1/0 returns and this can just be smp_cache_string_to_topology() as you have it in this version. The check on the return value becomes a little more more complex and I think you want to squash CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_MAX down so we only have one invalid value to check at callers.. E.g. static CPUTopoLevel smp_cache_string_to_topolgy(MachineState *ms, char *top_str, Error **errp) { CPUTopoLevel topo = string_to_cpu_topo(topo_str); if (topo == CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_MAX || topo == CPU_TOP?O_LEVEL_INVALID) { return CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID; } if (!machine_check_topo_support(ms, topo) { error_setg(errp, "Invalid cache topology level: %s. " "The cache topology should match the CPU topology level", //Break string like this to make it as grep-able as possible! topo_str); return CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID; } return topo; } The checks then become != CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID at each callsite. Jonathan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C67AC54798 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rev40-0007Ox-Gk; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 05:51:56 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rev3x-0007Nj-QL; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 05:51:53 -0500 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com ([185.176.79.56]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rev3v-0002n3-EP; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 05:51:53 -0500 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TkZ1V5Kwjz6J9xv; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:47:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0695A140F4E; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:51:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:51:46 +0000 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:51:45 +0000 To: Zhao Liu CC: "Daniel P . =?UTF-8?Q?Berrang=EF=BF=BD?=" , "Eduardo Habkost" , Marcel Apfelbaum , Philippe =?UTF-8?Q?Mathieu-Daud=EF=BF=BD?= , Yanan Wang , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Paolo Bonzini , "Richard Henderson" , Eric Blake , Markus Armbruster , Marcelo Tosatti , Alex =?UTF-8?Q?Benn=EF=BF=BDe?= , Peter Maydell , "Sia Jee Heng" , , , , , "Zhenyu Wang" , Dapeng Mi , Yongwei Ma , Zhao Liu Subject: Re: [RFC 4/8] hw/core: Add cache topology options in -smp Message-ID: <20240227105145.0000106d@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20240220092504.726064-1-zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com> <20240220092504.726064-5-zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com> <20240226153947.00006fd6@Huawei.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.202.227.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.78) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.176.79.56; envelope-from=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-to: Jonathan Cameron From: Jonathan Cameron via Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:20:25 +0800 Zhao Liu wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > > Hi Zhao Liu > > > > I like the scheme. Strikes a good balance between complexity of description > > and systems that actually exist. Sure there are systems with more cache > > levels etc but they are rare and support can be easily added later > > if people want to model them. > > Thanks for your support! > > [snip] > > > > +static int smp_cache_string_to_topology(MachineState *ms, > > > > Not a good name for a function that does rather more than that. > > What about "smp_cache_get_valid_topology()"? Looking again, could we return the CPUTopoLevel? I think returning CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID will replace -1/0 returns and this can just be smp_cache_string_to_topology() as you have it in this version. The check on the return value becomes a little more more complex and I think you want to squash CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_MAX down so we only have one invalid value to check at callers.. E.g. static CPUTopoLevel smp_cache_string_to_topolgy(MachineState *ms, char *top_str, Error **errp) { CPUTopoLevel topo = string_to_cpu_topo(topo_str); if (topo == CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_MAX || topo == CPU_TOP?O_LEVEL_INVALID) { return CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID; } if (!machine_check_topo_support(ms, topo) { error_setg(errp, "Invalid cache topology level: %s. " "The cache topology should match the CPU topology level", //Break string like this to make it as grep-able as possible! topo_str); return CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID; } return topo; } The checks then become != CPU_TOPO_LEVEL_INVALID at each callsite. Jonathan