On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:43:41PM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> writes: > > > it will allow mgmt to query present and possible to hotplug CPUs > > it is required from a target platform that wish to support > > command to set board specific MachineClass.possible_cpus() hook, > > which will return a list of possible CPUs with options > > that would be needed for hotplugging possible CPUs. > > > > For RFC there are: > > 'arch_id': 'int' - mandatory unique CPU number, > > for x86 it's APIC ID for ARM it's MPIDR > > 'type': 'str' - CPU object type for usage with device_add > > > > and a set of optional fields that would allows mgmt tools > > to know at what granularity and where a new CPU could be > > hotplugged; > > [node],[socket],[core],[thread] > > Hopefully that should cover needs for CPU hotplug porposes for > > magor targets and we can extend structure in future adding > > more fields if it will be needed. > > > > also for present CPUs there is a 'cpu_link' field which > > would allow mgmt inspect whatever object/abstraction > > the target platform considers as CPU object. > > > > For RFC purposes implements only for x86 target so far. > > Adding ad hoc queries as we go won't scale. Could this be solved by a > generic introspection interface?
That's my main concern as well.
Igor, did you see my post with a proposal for how to organize
hotpluggable packages of CPUs? I believe that would also solve the
problem at hand here, by having a standard QOM location with
discoverable cpu objects.
The interface in your patch in particular would *not* solve the
problem of advertising to management layers what the granularity of
CPU hotplug is, which we absolutely need for Power.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
