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 EA327C3DA79 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 07:08:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rPH4Z-0007dv-2d; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 02:07:51 -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 1rPH4V-0007dn-Nu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 02:07:47 -0500 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([198.175.65.12]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rPH4T-0004Y4-Ot for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2024 02:07:47 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1705302466; x=1736838466; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=o7qZxhaRG6s2AdoDhlfCwW2RkcbUaQCrovplsa+bUjw=; b=Jm95pQsYelGp7xEl8nyC64PnVpnTxdXvJMQ5GFwA4tjfvYic7LpSA8s7 WA0js1yed5t71Ntk7SL6/0LS6DDZ5rC6eheH9aptuXyw9zTkPnp5/Li4c ptRx5b2oQsUAqXg83xJb7SP1XUiShMeZBTstJ+oOfzMhoNcF9O2HPDZN8 36ufKv9OfLlRj+15mmbsv20t4oWIW3SgvIffDgh3nEa9YAPOcFMCHLbYr awX6flvGhLSESFVdfbowVO2IaBFAkAHsQoyeB7Mjr8j5ieH/1jOvMLDpO 18ajsuEkkATE6Yp+jZmUrFRMKpKNa9KAnWj+OA/UcSpPzHEewCAt9Mza/ Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10953"; a="6918404" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,196,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="6918404" Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orvoesa104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jan 2024 23:07:44 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10953"; a="1114855357" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,196,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="1114855357" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.36]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2024 23:07:39 -0800 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 15:20:37 +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> <20240115065730.ezwpd3sjoycc57rm@yy-desk-7060> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240115065730.ezwpd3sjoycc57rm@yy-desk-7060> Received-SPF: none client-ip=198.175.65.12; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@linux.intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -47 X-Spam_score: -4.8 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.8 / 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, 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 02:57:30PM +0800, Yuan Yao wrote: > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 14:57:30 +0800 > From: Yuan Yao > Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 08/16] i386: Expose module level in CPUID[0x1F] > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 02:20:20PM +0800, Zhao Liu wrote: > > 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. > > Here they don't expose because from hardware level they can't or possible > software level configuration (i.e. disable some cores in bios) ? > This leaf is decided at hardware level. Whether or not which levels are exposed sometimes depends if there is the topology-related feature, but there is no clear rule (just as in the ADL family neither ADL-S/P exposes modules, while ADL-N exposes modules). Regards, Zhao