From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35510) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T10gz-0006op-5H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:52:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T10gy-0005Lr-0M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:52:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27167) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1T10gx-0005Lj-OV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:52:47 -0400 Message-ID: <50295B0B.5070409@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:52:43 +0200 From: Igor Mammedov MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1344369413-9053-1-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> <1344369413-9053-7-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1344369413-9053-7-git-send-email-ehabkost@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 06/15] pc: set FW_CFG data based on APIC ID calculation List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Gleb Natapov , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= On 08/07/2012 09:56 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > This changes FW_CFG_MAX_CPUS and FW_CFG_NUMA to use apic_id_for_cpu(), > so the NUMA table can be based on the APIC IDs, instead of CPU index > (SeaBIOS knows nothing about CPU indexes, just APIC IDs). > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost > --- > hw/pc.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- > target-i386/cpu.h | 7 +++++++ > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/pc.c b/hw/pc.c > index 10449bd..9afb838 100644 > --- a/hw/pc.c > +++ b/hw/pc.c > @@ -581,6 +581,11 @@ int e820_add_entry(uint64_t address, uint64_t length, uint32_t type) > return index; > } > > +unsigned int apic_id_limit(void) > +{ > + return apic_id_for_cpu(max_cpus - 1) + 1; > +} > + > static void *bochs_bios_init(void) > { > void *fw_cfg; > @@ -588,6 +593,7 @@ static void *bochs_bios_init(void) > size_t smbios_len; > uint64_t *numa_fw_cfg; > int i, j; > + unsigned int max_apic_id = apic_id_limit(); > > register_ioport_write(0x400, 1, 2, bochs_bios_write, NULL); > register_ioport_write(0x401, 1, 2, bochs_bios_write, NULL); > @@ -602,7 +608,7 @@ static void *bochs_bios_init(void) > register_ioport_write(0x503, 1, 1, bochs_bios_write, NULL); > > fw_cfg = fw_cfg_init(BIOS_CFG_IOPORT, BIOS_CFG_IOPORT + 1, 0, 0); > - fw_cfg_add_i16(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_MAX_CPUS, (uint16_t)max_cpus); > + fw_cfg_add_i16(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_MAX_CPUS, (uint16_t)max_apic_id); FW_CFG_MAX_CPUS becoming not MAX_CPUS sounds a bit confusing, perhaps short comment should be here to document this and why it's not? So code reader won't make false assumptions? > fw_cfg_add_i32(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_ID, 1); > fw_cfg_add_i64(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_RAM_SIZE, (uint64_t)ram_size); > fw_cfg_add_bytes(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_ACPI_TABLES, (uint8_t *)acpi_tables, > @@ -622,21 +628,24 @@ static void *bochs_bios_init(void) > * of nodes, one word for each VCPU->node and one word for each node to > * hold the amount of memory. > */ > - numa_fw_cfg = g_malloc0((1 + max_cpus + nb_numa_nodes) * 8); > + numa_fw_cfg = g_malloc0((1 + max_apic_id + nb_numa_nodes) * 8); > numa_fw_cfg[0] = cpu_to_le64(nb_numa_nodes); > - for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) { > + unsigned int cpu_idx; > + for (cpu_idx = 0; cpu_idx < max_cpus; cpu_idx++) { > + unsigned int apic_id = apic_id_for_cpu(cpu_idx); > + assert(apic_id < max_apic_id); > for (j = 0; j < nb_numa_nodes; j++) { > - if (test_bit(i, node_cpumask[j])) { > - numa_fw_cfg[i + 1] = cpu_to_le64(j); > + if (test_bit(cpu_idx, node_cpumask[j])) { > + numa_fw_cfg[apic_id + 1] = cpu_to_le64(j); > break; > } > } > } > for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) { > - numa_fw_cfg[max_cpus + 1 + i] = cpu_to_le64(node_mem[i]); > + numa_fw_cfg[max_apic_id + 1 + i] = cpu_to_le64(node_mem[i]); > } > fw_cfg_add_bytes(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_NUMA, (uint8_t *)numa_fw_cfg, > - (1 + max_cpus + nb_numa_nodes) * 8); > + (1 + max_apic_id + nb_numa_nodes) * 8); > > return fw_cfg; > } > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.h b/target-i386/cpu.h > index 39ea005..257d6c7 100644 > --- a/target-i386/cpu.h > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.h > @@ -919,6 +919,13 @@ void host_cpuid(uint32_t function, uint32_t count, > */ > unsigned int apic_id_for_cpu(int cpu_index); > > +/* Calculate limit for the APIC ID value, based on max_cpus > + * > + * On PC, FW_CFG_MAX_CPUS is not max_cpus, but the limit for the APIC IDs > + * of all CPUs (so that of all CPUs APIC ID < MAX_CPUS). > + */ > +unsigned int apic_id_limit(void); > + > > /* helper.c */ > int cpu_x86_handle_mmu_fault(CPUX86State *env, target_ulong addr, > -- Regards, Igor