From: "Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] docs: add a table showing x86-64 ABI compatibility levels
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:19:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210201171912.GO4131462@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-yzX1ZSPayvy9u8GUbXpgLgQNA7=52qSnDMjakSU0B-Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 04:53:03PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 15:39, Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is useful to know which CPUs satisfy each x86-64 ABI
> > compatibility level, when dealing with guest OS that require
> > something newer than the baseline ABI.
> >
> > These ABI levels are defined in:
> >
> > https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/
> >
> > and supported by GCC, CLang, GLibC and more.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> > +ABI compatibility levels for CPU models
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > +
> > +The x86_64 architecture has a number of `ABI compatibility levels`_
> > +defined. Traditionally most operating systems and toolchains would
> > +only target the original baseline ABI. It is expected that in
> > +future OS and toolchains are likely to target newer ABIs. The
> > +following table illustrates which ABI compatibility levels can be
> > +satisfied by the QEMU CPU models
> > +
> > +.. _ABI compatibility levels: https://gitlab.com/x86-psABIs/x86-64-ABI/
> > +
> > +.. csv-table:: x86-64 ABI compatibility levels
> > + :file: cpu-models-x86-abi.csv
> > + :widths: 40,15,15,15,15
> > + :header-rows: 1
>
> Apart from the QEMU/KVM specific CPU models, why is this something
> we should be documenting rather than, say, the people specifying
> what the ABI compatiblity levels are ?
QEMU's named CPU models are not a perfect match for features in the
real world silicon. So even if someone has a Skylake Server CPU with
feature X, this doesn't mean QEMU's definition of the Skylake-Server
CPU model is guaranteed to have feature X. So we want to document
the compatibility of the exact CPU models that QEMU has defined.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-01 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-01 15:36 [PATCH RFC 0/4] target/i386/cpu: introduce new CPU models for x86-64 ABI levels Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 15:36 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] docs: add a table showing x86-64 ABI compatibility levels Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 16:33 ` Florian Weimer
2021-02-01 17:17 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 16:53 ` Peter Maydell
2021-02-01 17:19 ` Daniel P. Berrangé [this message]
2021-02-02 9:06 ` Florian Weimer
2021-02-01 18:28 ` Eduardo Habkost
2021-02-02 12:24 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-02 9:41 ` David Edmondson
2021-02-02 12:23 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-02 12:43 ` David Edmondson
2021-02-01 15:36 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] target/i386: define CPU models to model x86-64 ABI levels Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-02 9:46 ` David Edmondson
2021-02-02 12:32 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-02 12:50 ` David Edmondson
2021-02-02 12:54 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 15:36 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] NOT FOR MERGE target/i386: use x86-64-abi1 CPU model as default on x86_64 Daniel P. Berrangé
2021-02-01 15:36 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] NOT FOR MERGE: script for CPU model stuff related to x86-64 ABI levels Daniel P. Berrangé
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=20210201171912.GO4131462@redhat.com \
--to=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=crosa@redhat.com \
--cc=ehabkost@redhat.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).