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 75D72C38150 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2024 02:08:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sQdnH-0000n6-4I; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 22:07:55 -0400 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 1sQdnF-0000mW-NR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 22:07:53 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.198.163.17]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sQdnC-0008Ku-8f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2024 22:07:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1720404470; x=1751940470; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=s9EvMeqE/v+Xxa+tzZ9iJKOF6RzpmwAMFipH7weu97w=; b=TM7NEn6VZAxbt+cVnzJNN0lrhDoFqGzo6H2hHpjuWKI+rg0HRH8uGfxG Ii/W/6UXHIpGsRqOKCOrNVtYvu9rjKBUC4eTmBCHXkiC6RxtLYuFZkq11 PBh+kimnQBHXNI0AZvA2xNQvOBY4JIKdBPWmUxLSedhb6IdjJj2n5ES8s DVZlqLAKzaSA+15YP74FcPXEQp24QggdZusVar5BxuF3iMIbOwc+LOFoY NEwhlxbRXQ7YduNSqYxeZq/e3xk80zf4FEu+Mkvkw4G0kst3JVJW4iDkm BFqamtzP98iDo3WHgo8gL3pj1p0y80sk2UVzIiLyYTZMt0E5nPNqN9Q8x g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: oJxUXfWCTOqgZBiA31d+OA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: F7oOjHljR0+XEc+bUAAb4w== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11126"; a="17463724" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,191,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="17463724" Received: from fmviesa008.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.148]) by fmvoesa111.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Jul 2024 19:07:49 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: hH4zGydNQq+cU2RmpptdxQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: HTsAkk4GS/i9AwBK9c1xeg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,191,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="47318877" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.36]) by fmviesa008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Jul 2024 19:07:47 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:23:26 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Igor Mammedov Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] target/i386/cpu: Misc Cleanup on host-cache-info Message-ID: References: <20240619144215.3273989-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240619144215.3273989-1-zhao1.liu@intel.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=192.198.163.17; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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: 2.1.29 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 Hi Igor, Just a gentle poke and what do you think about this minor series? Thanks, Zhao On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:42:12PM +0800, Zhao Liu wrote: > Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 22:42:12 +0800 > From: Zhao Liu > Subject: [PATCH 0/3] target/i386/cpu: Misc Cleanup on host-cache-info > X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1 > > Hi, > > This series is mainly to addresss Igor's comment about if one check in > host-cache-info could be removed [1], i.e., whether Guest's cache > topology should be self-consistent (able to correspond to Guest's CPU > topology level, as we currently do with the Guest cache topo). > > I originally thought (in the mail thread with Igor) that host-cache-info > should allow Guest and Host to have the same topology level information, > e.g. if Host shares cache on core level, then via host-cache-info, Guest > should also share on core level. > > But in practice, I gave up on this idea, because in the cache info > passthrough case, it should be possible for Guest to get the original > Host cache info (including the original threads sharing cache) without > further modifying the info to Guest. > > Therefore, I simply added the comment in PATCH 3 to hopefully illustrate > the need for such a check. > > Hope my explanation is clear enough so that my poor English doesn't > bother you! > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20240527170317.14520a2f@imammedo.users.ipa.redhat.com/ > > Thanks and Best Regards, > Zhao > --- > Zhao Liu (3): > target/i386/cpu: Use hex mask to check for valid cache CPUID leaf > target/i386/cpu: Check guest_thread_ids_per_pkg for host-cache-info > case > target/i386/cpu: Add comment about adjusting the Guest cache topo for > host-cache-info > > target/i386/cpu.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.34.1 > >