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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF2FC3DA79 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 06:08:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rPG8B-0002tP-U0; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 01:07:32 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rPG8A-0002tH-H3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 01:07:30 -0500 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rPG88-0000oY-KT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 01:07:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1705298848; x=1736834848; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=yO6y4061mOMOBuAjTQimWEv3SWvQ0lvROuG9u3xeD1w=; b=AWrYrYZSdzUedVwIX+NZ0JLC1RJFzDYcRDe+QccPAFQnSAx11GzqnB0+ RiFzeK5uV7V26/3d4fYPtneqWSF68LSr+BQQb9p9s/wksicgvung27KF1 mt+KqqOngbHYPdRuhK2hRzqtTwik36/ubzKHs54RZg8gdy0DX8/wj6TPh IWR0D02+1Ce0CK3c47HZRhiZnAeEjPCDI/BXSorClQQ1/0NaXe4dt/HcH XNajrrJkcHBXT1MY1euUqZQgP/LUQjkn5gqVYiWzkN4pymXUzoRTewDCq p27X2uyWrbEix7z7iisesc+gh0JOF9nRWCY8fLPweuAOUc03QnUa4SeEA w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10953"; a="485701525" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,195,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="485701525" Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jan 2024 22:07:26 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10953"; a="853898393" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,195,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="853898393" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.36]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2024 22:07:22 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:20:20 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Yuan Yao Cc: Xiaoyao Li , Eduardo Habkost , Marcel Apfelbaum , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Richard Henderson , Paolo Bonzini , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Zhenyu Wang , Zhuocheng Ding , Zhao Liu , Babu Moger , Yongwei Ma Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 08/16] i386: Expose module level in CPUID[0x1F] Message-ID: References: <20240108082727.420817-1-zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com> <20240108082727.420817-9-zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com> <20240115032524.44q5ygb25ieut44c@yy-desk-7060> <336a4816-966d-42b0-b34b-47be3e41446d@intel.com> <20240115052022.xbv6exhm4af7kai7@yy-desk-7060> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240115052022.xbv6exhm4af7kai7@yy-desk-7060> Received-SPF: none client-ip=192.55.52.43; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -70 X-Spam_score: -7.1 X-Spam_bar: ------- X-Spam_report: (-7.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-2.758, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 01:20:22PM +0800, Yuan Yao wrote: > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 13:20:22 +0800 > From: Yuan Yao > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 08/16] i386: Expose module level in CPUID[0x1F] > > Ah, so my understanding is incorrect on this. > > I tried on one raptor lake i5-i335U, which also hybrid soc but doesn't have > module level, in this case 0x1f and 0xb have same values in core/lp level. Some socs have modules/dies but they don't expose them in 0x1f. If the soc only expose thread/core levels in 0x1f, then its 0x1f is same as 0x0b. Otherwise, it will have more subleaves and different values. Thanks, Zhao