From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51701) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Viiq2-0007cg-5v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Viipw-0002RE-4A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:22 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21358) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Viipv-0002Qy-RK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:47:16 -0500 Message-ID: <528B41A5.1080504@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:47:01 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1379694292-1601-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1379694292-1601-12-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <528A310A.60607@dlhnet.de> <528A3422.1030701@kamp.de> <528A3C4A.4090001@redhat.com> <528B3C86.3030309@kamp.de> In-Reply-To: <528B3C86.3030309@kamp.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 11/13] target-i386: forward CPUID cache leaves when -cpu host is used List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Lieven Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Anthony Liguori , =?UTF-8?B?QmVub8OudCBDYW5ldA==?= Il 19/11/2013 11:25, Peter Lieven ha scritto: >> > > ~/git/qemu$ x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 -m 2048 -drive > if=virtio,file=iscsi://172.21.200.45/iqn.2001-05.com.equallogic:0-8a0906-9d95c510a-344001d54795289f-2012-r2-1-7-0/0,format=raw,cache=writeback,aio=native > -smp 2,cores=2,threads=1,sockets=1 -cpu host -monitor stdio -vnc :1 > -enable-kvm -usb -usbdevice tablet -vga cirrus -global > virtio-blk-pci.scsi=off -serial null -parallel null -boot c What is your host CPU's topology > With just -smp 2 it works. However, have a look at my other email I > think there is a bug in smp_parse, because -smp 2 yields > cpus=2,cores=1,threads=1,sockets=1 whereas I think cores should > be 2. The code matching the comment in vl.c ("compute missing values, prefer sockets over cores over threads") would be like "-smp cpu=2,cores=1,threads=1,sockets=2", giving this code: if (cpus == 0) { sockets = sockets > 0 ? sockets : 1; cores = cores > 0 ? cores : 1; threads = threads > 0 ? threads : 1; cpus = cores * threads * sockets; } else if (sockets == 0) { cores = cores > 0 ? cores : 1; threads = threads > 0 ? threads : 1; sockets = cpus / (cores * threads); } else if (cores == 0) { threads = threads > 0 ? threads : 1; cores = cpus / (sockets * threads); } else { threads = cpus / (sockets * cores); } What you suggest is cores over threads over sockets: if (cpus == 0) { cores = cores > 0 ? cores : 1; threads = threads > 0 ? threads : 1; sockets = sockets > 0 ? sockets : 1; cpus = cores * threads * sockets; } else if (cores == 0) { threads = threads > 0 ? threads : 1; sockets = sockets > 0 ? sockets : 1; cores = cpus / (threads * sockets); } else if (threads == 0) { sockets = sockets > 0 ? sockets : 1; threads = cpus / (cores * sockets); } else { sockets = cpus / (cores * threads); } Can you test which of these two work? But I agree it's best to disable cache-leaf forwarding. Paolo