From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57358) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XMoYX-0007G9-F4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:31:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XMoYS-00024C-GK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:31:17 -0400 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:23572) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XMoYR-00023t-MI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:31:12 -0400 Message-ID: <53FE8648.2080409@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:30:48 +0800 From: zhanghailiang MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1408610249-7452-1-git-send-email-zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com> <20140827135953.GA18634@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140827135953.GA18634@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] acpi-build: Set FORCE_APIC_CLUSTER_MODEL bit of FADT flags List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: huangzhichao , imammedo@redhat.com, luonengjun@huawei.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, peter.huangpeng@huawei.com On 2014/8/27 21:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 04:37:29PM +0800, zhanghailiang wrote: >> If we start Windows 2008 R2 DataCenter with number of cpu less than 8, >> The system will use APIC Flat Logical destination mode as default configuration, >> Which has an upper limit of 8 CPUs. >> >> The fault is that VM can not show all processors within Task Manager if >> we hot-add cpus when the number of cpus in VM extends the limit of 8. >> >> If we use cluster destination model, the problem will be solved. >> >> Signed-off-by: huangzhichao >> Signed-off-by: zhanghailiang > > What if maxcpus is low? > No reason to force cluster model then, right? > Hi Michael, Yes, It is better not to force cluster model when maxcpus is less than 8. Can we set this bit according to the value of max_cpus? Anyway, i think it is a bug;) What's your suggestion? Thanks. Best Regards, zhanghailiang >> --- >> hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c >> index 10b84d0..fed4501 100644 >> --- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c >> +++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c >> @@ -545,7 +545,8 @@ static void fadt_setup(AcpiFadtDescriptorRev1 *fadt, AcpiPmInfo *pm) >> (1<< ACPI_FADT_F_PROC_C1) | >> (1<< ACPI_FADT_F_SLP_BUTTON) | >> (1<< ACPI_FADT_F_RTC_S4)); >> - fadt->flags |= cpu_to_le32(1<< ACPI_FADT_F_USE_PLATFORM_CLOCK); >> + fadt->flags |= cpu_to_le32(1<< ACPI_FADT_F_USE_PLATFORM_CLOCK | >> + 1<< ACPI_FADT_F_FORCE_APIC_CLUSTER_MODEL); >> } >> >> >> -- >> 1.7.12.4 >> > > . >