On 11/12/23 18:09, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/24/23 03:54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
On 23/11/23 05:42, Richard Henderson wrote:
There is no need to do this in kvm_arch_init_vcpu per vcpu.
Inline kvm_arm_init_serror_injection rather than keep separate.
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
---
target/arm/kvm_arm.h | 8 --------
target/arm/kvm.c | 13 ++++---------
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
@@ -562,6 +556,10 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s)
cap_has_mp_state = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_MP_STATE);
+ /* Check whether user space can specify guest syndrome value */
+ cap_has_inject_serror_esr =
+ kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_ARM_INJECT_SERROR_ESR);
+
if (ms->smp.cpus > 256 &&
!kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_ARM_IRQ_LINE_LAYOUT_2)) {
error_report("Using more than 256 vcpus requires a host
kernel "
@@ -1948,9 +1946,6 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vcpu(CPUState *cs)
}
cpu->mp_affinity = mpidr & ARM64_AFFINITY_MASK;
- /* Check whether user space can specify guest syndrome value */
- kvm_arm_init_serror_injection(cs);
-
return kvm_arm_init_cpreg_list(cpu);
}
Just checking, in a heterogeneous setup we still want to keep
these 2 calls per-vCPU, right?
There is no hetrogeneous kvm -- every vcpu must match the host cpu.
So big.LITTLE will never be a KVM thing?
