From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: XSAVES in GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID (was Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH]
 target-i386: add Skylake-Client cpu mode)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:46 +0200
Message-ID: <573471D6.8050102@redhat.com>
References: <1461744786-47643-1-git-send-email-guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
 <20160428173443.GA24153@thinpad.lan.raisama.net>
 <57284774.7010401@linux.intel.com>
 <20160503161131.GN4457@thinpad.lan.raisama.net>
 <5728E374.4020809@linux.intel.com> <5728E5A7.9020709@intel.com>
 <57309459.8080501@redhat.com> <20160512120331.GM4457@thinpad.lan.raisama.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>,
	imammedo@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com,
	gleb@kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	stefanha@redhat.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, rth@twiddle.net,
	"Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
	"Wang, Yong Y" <yong.y.wang@intel.com>,
	"virt-intel-list@redhat.com" <virt-intel-list@redhat.com>,
	"Kasten, Robert A" <robert.a.kasten@intel.com>,
	"Lai, Paul C" <paul.c.lai@intel.com>,
	"Xiao, Guangrong" <guangrong.xiao@intel.com>,
	"ruwang@redhat.com" <ruwang@redhat.com>,
	"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
To: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39083 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752517AbcELMGz (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 May 2016 08:06:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20160512120331.GM4457@thinpad.lan.raisama.net>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>



On 12/05/2016 14:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > Item number 2 on the other hand means that it's okay to add Skylake CPU
> > models without XSAVES.  Because of the large number of kernels in the
> > wild that block XSAVES, I'm inclined to do that.
>
> Agreed. Now, should we name the CPU model without XSAVES
> "Skylake" or "Skylake-noXSAVES"? I'm inclined towards the latter,
> to follow the same pattern we used for "Haswell-noTSX".

Do we have a plan to add Skylake with XSAVES?  I think no, so it should
be fine to do

	.name = "Skylake",

	.features[FEATURE_XSAVE] = CPUID_XSAVE_XSAVEOPT |
		CPUID_XSAVE_XGETBV1 | CPUID_XSAVE_XSAVEC
		/* omitting CPUID_XSAVE_XSAVES because... */

Haswell-noTSX was added only because we already had a model with TSX.
If we hadn't we probably would have had:

- Haswell without TSX

- Broadwell without TSX

- Broadwell-EX with TSX (or something like that).

Thanks,

Paolo