From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80CBC433DB for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:23:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A27664E54 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:23:13 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1A27664E54 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:50292 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6cut-0007YW-SE for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 12:23:11 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35990) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6crK-0004Je-Tm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 12:19:30 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:36058) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6crI-0000SV-WF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 12:19:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1612199968; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=04EhfPcHYX9UhzPf2e/FnBcnF2SHsIOz8eA0EZwoOzo=; b=MHr/ATCs45magY4xr4tIEXJkk1v2lR2f0eaP6PIHuRqxJAEh4P4bIcr5T9jvrCbBRnyKZV 7c25ubpx1h8FGXRPbxmQ1pgfJvlyuOEWJZgid+3Ev1QvpuP+Q72CxWIlDTMws1smbKmUpH R5xpE8CU6LkJJoMTLX3wt5fAI2pIEao= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-362-8LMP8JpAMSSJmyife6RiqA-1; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 12:19:25 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 8LMP8JpAMSSJmyife6RiqA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC538835DF7; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:19:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-114-195.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.195]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 994FF5D749; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:19:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:19:12 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] docs: add a table showing x86-64 ABI compatibility levels Message-ID: <20210201171912.GO4131462@redhat.com> References: <20210201153606.4158076-1-berrange@redhat.com> <20210201153606.4158076-2-berrange@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.14.6 (2020-07-11) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=berrange@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=63.128.21.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -30 X-Spam_score: -3.1 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.351, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Cc: Florian Weimer , Eduardo Habkost , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Richard Henderson , QEMU Developers , Cleber Rosa , Paolo Bonzini Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 04:53:03PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 15:39, Daniel P. Berrangé 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 > > +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 :|