From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>,
qemu-devel qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: Add new -cpu best
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:25:50 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FF1AF6E.7070100@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1340728795-4379-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de>
On 06/26/2012 07:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> During discussions on whether to make -cpu host the default in SLE, I found
> myself disagreeing to the thought, because it potentially opens a big can
> of worms for potential bugs. But if I already am so opposed to it for SLE, how
> can it possibly be reasonable to default to -cpu host in upstream QEMU? And
> what would a sane default look like?
>
> So I had this idea of looping through all available CPU definitions. We can
> pretty well tell if our host is able to execute any of them by checking the
> respective flags and seeing if our host has all features the CPU definition
> requires. With that, we can create a -cpu type that would fall back to the
> "best known CPU definition" that our host can fulfill. On my Phenom II
> system for example, that would be -cpu phenom.
>
> With this approach we can test and verify that CPU types actually work at
> any random user setup, because we can always verify that all the -cpu types
> we ship actually work. And we only default to some clever mechanism that
> chooses from one of these.
>
>
> +/* Are all guest feature bits present on the host? */
> +static bool cpu_x86_feature_subset(uint32_t host, uint32_t guest)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
> + uint32_t mask = 1 << i;
> + if ((guest & mask) && !(host & mask)) {
> + return false;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return true;
return !(guest & ~host);
> +}
> +
> +
> +
> +static void cpu_x86_fill_best(x86_def_t *x86_cpu_def)
> +{
> + x86_def_t *def;
> +
> + x86_cpu_def->family = 0;
> + x86_cpu_def->model = 0;
> + for (def = x86_defs; def; def = def->next) {
> + if (cpu_x86_fits_host(def) && cpu_x86_fits_higher(def, x86_cpu_def)) {
> + memcpy(x86_cpu_def, def, sizeof(*def));
> + }
*x86_cpu_def = *def;
> + }
> +
> + if (!x86_cpu_def->family && !x86_cpu_def->model) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "No fitting CPU model found!\n");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static int unavailable_host_feature(struct model_features_t *f, uint32_t mask)
> {
> int i;
> @@ -878,6 +957,8 @@ static int cpu_x86_find_by_name(x86_def_t *x86_cpu_def, const char *cpu_model)
> break;
> if (kvm_enabled() && name && strcmp(name, "host") == 0) {
> cpu_x86_fill_host(x86_cpu_def);
> + } else if (kvm_enabled() && name && strcmp(name, "best") == 0) {
> + cpu_x86_fill_best(x86_cpu_def);
> } else if (!def) {
> goto error;
> } else {
>
Should we copy the cache size etc. from the host?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
Ryan Harper <ryanh@us.ibm.com>,
qemu-devel qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: Add new -cpu best
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:25:50 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FF1AF6E.7070100@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1340728795-4379-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de>
On 06/26/2012 07:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> During discussions on whether to make -cpu host the default in SLE, I found
> myself disagreeing to the thought, because it potentially opens a big can
> of worms for potential bugs. But if I already am so opposed to it for SLE, how
> can it possibly be reasonable to default to -cpu host in upstream QEMU? And
> what would a sane default look like?
>
> So I had this idea of looping through all available CPU definitions. We can
> pretty well tell if our host is able to execute any of them by checking the
> respective flags and seeing if our host has all features the CPU definition
> requires. With that, we can create a -cpu type that would fall back to the
> "best known CPU definition" that our host can fulfill. On my Phenom II
> system for example, that would be -cpu phenom.
>
> With this approach we can test and verify that CPU types actually work at
> any random user setup, because we can always verify that all the -cpu types
> we ship actually work. And we only default to some clever mechanism that
> chooses from one of these.
>
>
> +/* Are all guest feature bits present on the host? */
> +static bool cpu_x86_feature_subset(uint32_t host, uint32_t guest)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
> + uint32_t mask = 1 << i;
> + if ((guest & mask) && !(host & mask)) {
> + return false;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return true;
return !(guest & ~host);
> +}
> +
> +
> +
> +static void cpu_x86_fill_best(x86_def_t *x86_cpu_def)
> +{
> + x86_def_t *def;
> +
> + x86_cpu_def->family = 0;
> + x86_cpu_def->model = 0;
> + for (def = x86_defs; def; def = def->next) {
> + if (cpu_x86_fits_host(def) && cpu_x86_fits_higher(def, x86_cpu_def)) {
> + memcpy(x86_cpu_def, def, sizeof(*def));
> + }
*x86_cpu_def = *def;
> + }
> +
> + if (!x86_cpu_def->family && !x86_cpu_def->model) {
> + fprintf(stderr, "No fitting CPU model found!\n");
> + exit(1);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static int unavailable_host_feature(struct model_features_t *f, uint32_t mask)
> {
> int i;
> @@ -878,6 +957,8 @@ static int cpu_x86_find_by_name(x86_def_t *x86_cpu_def, const char *cpu_model)
> break;
> if (kvm_enabled() && name && strcmp(name, "host") == 0) {
> cpu_x86_fill_host(x86_cpu_def);
> + } else if (kvm_enabled() && name && strcmp(name, "best") == 0) {
> + cpu_x86_fill_best(x86_cpu_def);
> } else if (!def) {
> goto error;
> } else {
>
Should we copy the cache size etc. from the host?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-02 14:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-26 16:39 [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: Add new -cpu best Alexander Graf
2012-06-26 16:39 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: Use -cpu best as default on x86 Alexander Graf
2012-07-02 14:27 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-02 14:27 ` [Qemu-devel] " Avi Kivity
2012-06-26 16:39 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] i386: KVM: List -cpu host and best in -cpu ? Alexander Graf
2012-07-02 14:02 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: Add new -cpu best Alexander Graf
2012-07-02 14:02 ` Alexander Graf
2012-07-02 14:24 ` Andreas Färber
2012-07-02 14:24 ` Andreas Färber
2012-07-02 14:25 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2012-07-02 14:25 ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-09 11:57 ` Alexander Graf
2012-07-09 11:57 ` [Qemu-devel] " Alexander Graf
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=4FF1AF6E.7070100@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=anthony@codemonkey.ws \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=ryanh@us.ibm.com \
/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.