From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42007) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acqbA-0003uG-DE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 03:33:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acqb5-00052R-C8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 03:33:04 -0500 Received: from e23smtp08.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.141]:33059) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1acqb4-00052J-JO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 03:32:59 -0500 Received: from localhost by e23smtp08.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 18:32:55 +1000 Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:01:55 +0530 From: Bharata B Rao Message-ID: <20160307083155.GA7164@in.ibm.com> References: <1457074461-14285-1-git-send-email-bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1457074461-14285-6-git-send-email-bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160304113845.667c19ad@nial.brq.redhat.com> <20160304110253.GB5054@in.ibm.com> <20160304190720.4d64abc4@nial.brq.redhat.com> <20160307033655.GD22546@voom.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160307033655.GD22546@voom.fritz.box> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v1 05/10] cpu: Abstract CPU core type Reply-To: bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Gibson Cc: mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, pkrempa@redhat.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, aik@ozlabs.ru, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de, armbru@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, g@voom.fritz.box, Igor Mammedov , mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, afaerber@suse.de On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 02:36:55PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 07:07:20PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:32:53 +0530 > > Bharata B Rao wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:38:45AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 12:24:16 +0530 > > > > Bharata B Rao wrote: > > > > > > > > > Add an abstract CPU core type that could be used by machines that want > > > > > to define and hotplug CPUs in core granularity. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao > > > > > --- > > > > > hw/cpu/Makefile.objs | 1 + > > > > > hw/cpu/core.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > include/hw/cpu/core.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > 3 files changed, 75 insertions(+) > > > > > create mode 100644 hw/cpu/core.c > > > > > create mode 100644 include/hw/cpu/core.h > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/cpu/Makefile.objs b/hw/cpu/Makefile.objs > > > > > index 0954a18..942a4bb 100644 > > > > > --- a/hw/cpu/Makefile.objs > > > > > +++ b/hw/cpu/Makefile.objs > > > > > @@ -2,4 +2,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARM11MPCORE) += arm11mpcore.o > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_REALVIEW) += realview_mpcore.o > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_A9MPCORE) += a9mpcore.o > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_A15MPCORE) += a15mpcore.o > > > > > +obj-y += core.o > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/cpu/core.c b/hw/cpu/core.c > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index 0000000..d8caf37 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/hw/cpu/core.c > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * CPU core abstract device > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2016 Bharata B Rao > > > > > + * > > > > > + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. > > > > > + * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +#include "hw/cpu/core.h" > > > > > + > > > > > +static char *core_prop_get_slot(Object *obj, Error **errp) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + CPUCore *core = CPU_CORE(obj); > > > > > + > > > > > + return g_strdup(core->slot); > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +static void core_prop_set_slot(Object *obj, const char *val, Error **errp) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + CPUCore *core = CPU_CORE(obj); > > > > > + > > > > > + core->slot = g_strdup(val); > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +static void cpu_core_instance_init(Object *obj) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + object_property_add_str(obj, "slot", core_prop_get_slot, core_prop_set_slot, > > > > > + NULL); > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +static const TypeInfo cpu_core_type_info = { > > > > > + .name = TYPE_CPU_CORE, > > > > > + .parent = TYPE_DEVICE, > > > > > + .abstract = true, > > > > > + .instance_size = sizeof(CPUCore), > > > > > + .instance_init = cpu_core_instance_init, > > > > > +}; > > > > > + > > > > > +static void cpu_core_register_types(void) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + type_register_static(&cpu_core_type_info); > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +type_init(cpu_core_register_types) > > > > > diff --git a/include/hw/cpu/core.h b/include/hw/cpu/core.h > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index 0000000..2daa724 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/include/hw/cpu/core.h > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * CPU core abstract device > > > > > + * > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2016 Bharata B Rao > > > > > + * > > > > > + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. > > > > > + * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +#ifndef HW_CPU_CORE_H > > > > > +#define HW_CPU_CORE_H > > > > > + > > > > > +#include "qemu/osdep.h" > > > > > +#include "hw/qdev.h" > > > > > + > > > > > +#define TYPE_CPU_CORE "cpu-core" > > > > > + > > > > > +#define CPU_CORE(obj) \ > > > > > + OBJECT_CHECK(CPUCore, (obj), TYPE_CPU_CORE) > > > > > + > > > > > +typedef struct CPUCore { > > > > > + /*< private >*/ > > > > > + DeviceState parent_obj; > > > > > + > > > > > + /*< public >*/ > > > > > + char *slot; > > > > > +} CPUCore; > > > > > + > > > > > +#define CPU_CORE_SLOT_PROP "slot" > > > > as it's generic property I'd rename to 'core' so it would fit all users > > > > > > Ok. Also note that this is a string property which is associated with the > > > link name (string) that we created from machine object to this core. I think > > > it would be ideal if this becomes an interger property in which case it > > > becomes easier to feed the core location into your CPUSlotProperties.core. > > agreed, it should be core number. > > The slot stuff is continuing to confuse me a bit. I see that we need > some kind of "address" value, but how best to do it is not clear to > me. > > Changing this to an integer sounds like it's probably a good idea. > I'm a bit wary of just calling it "core" though. Do all platforms > even necessarily have a core id? > > I'm wondering if the addressing is something that needs to move the > the platform specific subtypes, while some other stuff can move to the > generic base type. > > > > > on top of that I'd add numeric 'threads' property to base class so > > > > all derived cores would inherit it. > > > > > > > > Then as easy integration with -smp threads=x, a machine could push > > > > a global variable 'cpu-core.threads=[smp_threads]' which would > > > > make every created cpu-core object to have threads set > > > > at instance_init() time (device_init). > > > > > > > > That way user won't have to specify 'threads=y' for every > > > > device_add spapr-core,core=x > > > > as it will be taken from global property 'cpu-core.threads' > > > > but if user wishes he/she still could override global by explicitly > > > > providing thread property at device_add time: > > > > device_add spapr-core,core=x,threads=y > > > > > > > > wrt this series it would mean, instead of creating threads in property > > > > setter, delaying threads creation to core.realize() time, > > > > but since realize is allowed to fail it should be fine do so. > > > > > > Ok that would suit us as there are two properties on which thread creation > > > is dependent upon: nr_threads and cpu_model. If thread objects can be > > > created at core realize time, then we don't have to resort to the ugliness > > > of creating the threads from either of the property setters. I always > > > assumed that we shouldn't be creating objects from realize, but if that > > > is fine, it is good. > > since realize is allowed to fail, it should be safe from hotplug pov > > to create internal objects there, as far as proper cleanups are done > > for failure path. > > Right, moving the "nr_threads" property to the base type seems like a > good idea to me. And we will also move the cpu_model property (now being tracked by an ObjectClass pointer) to the base type ? Regards, Bharata.