On 2016/1/29 22:24, Igor Mammedov wrote:
in current impl. condition
build_madt() {
...
if (test_bit(i, cpuinfo->found_cpus))
is always true since loop handles only present CPUs
in range [0..smp_cpus).
But to fill usless cpuinfo->found_cpus we do unnecessary
scan over QOM tree to find the same CPUs.
So mark GICC as present always and drop not needed
code that fills cpuinfo->found_cpus.
Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov<imamm...@redhat.com>
---
It's just simple cleanup but I'm trying to generalize
a bit CPU related ACPI tables and as part of it get rid
of found_cpus bitmap and if possible cpu_index usage
in ACPI parts of code.
---
hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 26 +++-----------------------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
index 87fbe7c..3ed39fc 100644
--- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
+++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
@@ -46,20 +46,6 @@
#define ARM_SPI_BASE 32
#define ACPI_POWER_BUTTON_DEVICE "PWRB"
-typedef struct VirtAcpiCpuInfo {
- DECLARE_BITMAP(found_cpus, VIRT_ACPI_CPU_ID_LIMIT);
-} VirtAcpiCpuInfo;
-
-static void virt_acpi_get_cpu_info(VirtAcpiCpuInfo *cpuinfo)
-{
- CPUState *cpu;
-
- memset(cpuinfo->found_cpus, 0, sizeof cpuinfo->found_cpus);
- CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
- set_bit(cpu->cpu_index, cpuinfo->found_cpus);
- }
-}
-
static void acpi_dsdt_add_cpus(Aml *scope, int smp_cpus)
{
uint16_t i;
@@ -458,8 +444,7 @@ build_gtdt(GArray *table_data, GArray *linker)
/* MADT */
static void
-build_madt(GArray *table_data, GArray *linker, VirtGuestInfo *guest_info,
- VirtAcpiCpuInfo *cpuinfo)
+build_madt(GArray *table_data, GArray *linker, VirtGuestInfo *guest_info)
{
int madt_start = table_data->len;
const MemMapEntry *memmap = guest_info->memmap;
@@ -489,9 +474,7 @@ build_madt(GArray *table_data, GArray *linker,
VirtGuestInfo *guest_info,
gicc->cpu_interface_number = i;
gicc->arm_mpidr = armcpu->mp_affinity;
gicc->uid = i;
- if (test_bit(i, cpuinfo->found_cpus)) {
- gicc->flags = cpu_to_le32(ACPI_GICC_ENABLED);
- }
+ gicc->flags = cpu_to_le32(ACPI_GICC_ENABLED);
}
Ah, yes, it uses smp_cpus not max_cpus. But we still needs to support
max_cpus usage even though it doesn't support vcpu hotplug currently. So
we may need to introduce guest_info->max_cpus and use it here.
And below check in virt.c is not right while it should compare the
global max_cpus with the max_cpus GIC supports.
if (smp_cpus > max_cpus) {
error_report("Number of SMP CPUs requested (%d) exceeds max CPUs "
"supported by machine 'mach-virt' (%d)",
smp_cpus, max_cpus);
exit(1);
}
Thanks,
--
Shannon