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=-20.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, 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 C53FCC433DB for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:27:27 +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 1B22164E58 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:27:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1B22164E58 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]:57912 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6umE-0001J4-0N for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 07:27:26 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42334) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6uiy-0007Gt-2A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 07:24:04 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:52139) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6uis-0006si-Jm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 07:24:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1612268636; 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=6M7JWjNBJyJ0PYnbR1UF12LuEtXcDjZmDnKN85uT3xo=; b=NE5wxehUgqNm8lI31lMgvRnIm37VvjIZcoUUwNyFXJOICMkl6E/s9A7Q6s7b15bzVp5SsH jAa8gskiv5ebsMixhlt9koU5fQUD8kbcCvMNWhNFNXxISbyz0qlHszDSaaHxNgMISOeS+Y wyzBE24te6TZDyqAo/5kRLsiwA+kANQ= 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-399-N2JL6awnP0uq6-Kv8gQLuw-1; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 07:23:51 -0500 X-MC-Unique: N2JL6awnP0uq6-Kv8gQLuw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A5D780ED8E; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:23:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (ovpn-112-202.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.202]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 726641002393; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:23:42 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: David Edmondson Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] docs: add a table showing x86-64 ABI compatibility levels Message-ID: <20210202122342.GC4168502@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 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 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=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -31 X-Spam_score: -3.2 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.386, 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_H3=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-devel@nongnu.org, Cleber Rosa , Paolo Bonzini Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:41:15AM +0000, David Edmondson wrote: > On Monday, 2021-02-01 at 15:36:03 GMT, 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 > > --- > > MAINTAINERS | 2 +- > > docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > docs/system/cpu-models-x86.rst.inc | 18 +++++ > > 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > create mode 100644 docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > index fbb228ef2b..bb8d60c458 100644 > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ F: tests/tcg/i386/ > > F: tests/tcg/x86_64/ > > F: hw/i386/ > > F: disas/i386.c > > -F: docs/system/cpu-models-x86.rst.inc > > +F: docs/system/cpu-models-x86* > > T: git https://gitlab.com/ehabkost/qemu.git x86-next > > > > Xtensa TCG CPUs > > diff --git a/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000..4565e6a535 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/docs/system/cpu-models-x86-abi.csv > > @@ -0,0 +1,121 @@ > > +Model,baseline,v2,v3,v4 > > +486,,,, > > +486-v1,,,, > > +Broadwell,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-IBRS,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-noTSX,✅,✅,✅, > > +Broadwell-noTSX-IBRS,✅,✅,✅, > > Would it be useful to add an explicit negative mark (✘) in the slots > where the CPU does not satisfy the requirement? It makes reading the > table a little easier (my opinion, of course). I felt it was clearer to only show the positive case. Since the ABI levels are additive, you can count the ticks at a glance to see the ABI level achieved. Also this CSV file isn't really meant to be seen by users directly. It is just data input that gets rendered into an HTML table that looks like this: https://berrange.gitlab.io/-/qemu/-/jobs/1001700036/artifacts/public/system/target-i386.html#recommendations-for-kvm-cpu-model-configuration-on-x86-hosts 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 :|