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 97A46C3DA4B for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 13:00:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sTLJK-0005QV-VM; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:00:11 -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 1sTLJJ-0005NA-1A for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:00:09 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([198.175.65.21]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sTLJD-000841-Pw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:00:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1721048404; x=1752584404; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=msFGL9O2FG1ZiIjc/Rz/0KRBRpv3Wzr7X0GIM0OyuUk=; b=aXqm/TTij4MxscmQpZWJZv2zLi6f2nNQLMJ6luwpZDhZ54j6ZQn07fmZ sLp2ttYyJYPbiSIFKlxZjMf6wAYiicDl7pNDCdlun88ThXgl09CXrdhMz 6fYsck8hCF+z+JsT1a+MT8yJ/jAhh7Y+SVzi+tVyQdP3oZQt6orR3aQ1q dvh0usP2l0GXdIkcN6C0ySA/yIRny1XPSlV9HJUU8dLVuG1J5TVNww7mk c6XJ/kFX1IwmfHhhnnZY+AqZi9z2I70DfMRsVDh7Rmf25VTNX/kYvEne3 cXD5RwpvmEmkOszi9tYe32bDfS/3WNskfQGhgOOjAjqYVClUKBllKCxxA w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: re7N7gQFRYWYgmwQQVCJow== X-CSE-MsgGUID: zvkFt7IkR+KUUGvUQUZ2IA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11134"; a="18378834" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,210,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="18378834" Received: from orviesa001.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.141]) by orvoesa113.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jul 2024 05:59:59 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: NRovJIe8RciP8MhJ/qAoCw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: nikLPMm5QPWghVjg2TScEw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.09,210,1716274800"; d="scan'208";a="87121177" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.36]) by orviesa001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Jul 2024 05:59:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 21:15:39 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Igor Mammedov Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, zhao1.liu@intel.com 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: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.175.65.21; 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 friendly ping :-) May I ask if you are satisfied with the clarification in this series? Thanks, Zhao On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 10:23:26AM +0800, Zhao Liu wrote: > Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:23:26 +0800 > From: Zhao Liu > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] target/i386/cpu: Misc Cleanup on host-cache-info > > 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 > > > > >