On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:26:27 +1100 David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:29:29AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:36:55 +1100 > > David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 07:07:20PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:32:53 +0530 > > > > Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:38:45AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 12:24:16 +0530 > > > > > > Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add an abstract CPU core type that could be used by machines that > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > to define and hotplug CPUs in core granularity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > hw/cpu/Makefile.objs | 1 + > > > > > > > hw/cpu/core.c | 44 > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > include/hw/cpu/core.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 75 insertions(+) > > > > > > > create mode 100644 hw/cpu/core.c > > > > > > > create mode 100644 include/hw/cpu/core.h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/cpu/Makefile.objs b/hw/cpu/Makefile.objs > > > > > > > index 0954a18..942a4bb 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/hw/cpu/Makefile.objs > > > > > > > +++ b/hw/cpu/Makefile.objs > > > > > > > @@ -2,4 +2,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARM11MPCORE) += arm11mpcore.o > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_REALVIEW) += realview_mpcore.o > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_A9MPCORE) += a9mpcore.o > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_A15MPCORE) += a15mpcore.o > > > > > > > +obj-y += core.o > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/cpu/core.c b/hw/cpu/core.c > > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > > index 0000000..d8caf37 > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > > +++ b/hw/cpu/core.c > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > > + * CPU core abstract device > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2016 Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version > > > > > > > 2 or later. > > > > > > > + * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > +#include "hw/cpu/core.h" > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +static char *core_prop_get_slot(Object *obj, Error **errp) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + CPUCore *core = CPU_CORE(obj); > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + return g_strdup(core->slot); > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +static void core_prop_set_slot(Object *obj, const char *val, > > > > > > > Error **errp) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + CPUCore *core = CPU_CORE(obj); > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + core->slot = g_strdup(val); > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +static void cpu_core_instance_init(Object *obj) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + object_property_add_str(obj, "slot", core_prop_get_slot, > > > > > > > core_prop_set_slot, > > > > > > > + NULL); > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +static const TypeInfo cpu_core_type_info = { > > > > > > > + .name = TYPE_CPU_CORE, > > > > > > > + .parent = TYPE_DEVICE, > > > > > > > + .abstract = true, > > > > > > > + .instance_size = sizeof(CPUCore), > > > > > > > + .instance_init = cpu_core_instance_init, > > > > > > > +}; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +static void cpu_core_register_types(void) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + type_register_static(&cpu_core_type_info); > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +type_init(cpu_core_register_types) > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/hw/cpu/core.h b/include/hw/cpu/core.h > > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > > index 0000000..2daa724 > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > > +++ b/include/hw/cpu/core.h > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > > + * CPU core abstract device > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2016 Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > > + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version > > > > > > > 2 or later. > > > > > > > + * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > +#ifndef HW_CPU_CORE_H > > > > > > > +#define HW_CPU_CORE_H > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +#include "qemu/osdep.h" > > > > > > > +#include "hw/qdev.h" > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +#define TYPE_CPU_CORE "cpu-core" > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +#define CPU_CORE(obj) \ > > > > > > > + OBJECT_CHECK(CPUCore, (obj), TYPE_CPU_CORE) > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +typedef struct CPUCore { > > > > > > > + /*< private >*/ > > > > > > > + DeviceState parent_obj; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + /*< public >*/ > > > > > > > + char *slot; > > > > > > > +} CPUCore; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +#define CPU_CORE_SLOT_PROP "slot" > > > > > > as it's generic property I'd rename to 'core' so it would fit all > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > Ok. Also note that this is a string property which is associated with > > > > > the > > > > > link name (string) that we created from machine object to this core. > > > > > I think > > > > > it would be ideal if this becomes an interger property in which case > > > > > it > > > > > becomes easier to feed the core location into your > > > > > CPUSlotProperties.core. > > > > agreed, it should be core number. > > > > > > The slot stuff is continuing to confuse me a bit. I see that we need > > > some kind of "address" value, but how best to do it is not clear to > > > me. > > > > > > Changing this to an integer sounds like it's probably a good idea. > > > I'm a bit wary of just calling it "core" though. Do all platforms > > > even necessarily have a core id? > > platform's that don't have core concept could or even should > > use its own base type (i.e. not cpu-core). > > Hmm.. that's a good point. And actually makes me inclined to > suggest including the cpu model property in the base type, contrary to > my suggestion earlier. I've answered wrt cpu_model in "v1 05/10] cpu: Abstract CPU core type" thread. You can try to ping/ask Andreas on IRC what he thinks about it, but I think he would be against cpu_model property in core. > > I can think of (somewhat contrived) cases of cpu packages where > cpu_model doesn't make sense (e.g. a multi-chip bigLITTLE system, > since there are multiple CPU types in a package), but in that case the > package doesn't really resemble a "core" in any normal sense. > > > Numeric code id should work for x86, ARM and Power. > > Yes. I think a numeric id should be fine in general. Whether it's > actually meaningful with regard to platform docs, or completely > arbitrary might vary by platform, but it should be possible to create > something. > > > > I'm wondering if the addressing is something that needs to move the > > > the platform specific subtypes, while some other stuff can move to the > > > generic base type. > > core id looks to me as cpu-core property but I won't object if > > it will be moved to subtype as so far only Power would have it. > > > > What I'd prefer to keep is consistent naming of properties > > if it's possible, i.e. property 'core' which makes sense for x86, ARM, and > > Power > > from enduser point of view. > > > > > > > > > > > on top of that I'd add numeric 'threads' property to base class so > > > > > > all derived cores would inherit it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then as easy integration with -smp threads=x, a machine could push > > > > > > a global variable 'cpu-core.threads=[smp_threads]' which would > > > > > > make every created cpu-core object to have threads set > > > > > > at instance_init() time (device_init). > > > > > > > > > > > > That way user won't have to specify 'threads=y' for every > > > > > > device_add spapr-core,core=x > > > > > > as it will be taken from global property 'cpu-core.threads' > > > > > > but if user wishes he/she still could override global by explicitly > > > > > > providing thread property at device_add time: > > > > > > device_add spapr-core,core=x,threads=y > > > > > > > > > > > > wrt this series it would mean, instead of creating threads in > > > > > > property > > > > > > setter, delaying threads creation to core.realize() time, > > > > > > but since realize is allowed to fail it should be fine do so. > > > > > > > > > > Ok that would suit us as there are two properties on which thread > > > > > creation > > > > > is dependent upon: nr_threads and cpu_model. If thread objects can be > > > > > created at core realize time, then we don't have to resort to the > > > > > ugliness > > > > > of creating the threads from either of the property setters. I always > > > > > assumed that we shouldn't be creating objects from realize, but if > > > > > that > > > > > is fine, it is good. > > > > since realize is allowed to fail, it should be safe from hotplug pov > > > > to create internal objects there, as far as proper cleanups are done > > > > for failure path. > > > > > [...] > > > I'm not clear from the above if you're also intending to move at least > > > the adding of the threads as child properties is supposed to go into > > > the base type, > > I'm not sure that I've got question, could you please rephrase? > > So, it seems like we're agreed that moving the nr_threads property to > the base type is a good idea. > > My question is, do we also move the object_property_add_child() calls > for each thread to the base type (possibly via a helper function or > method the base type provides to derived types)? I can't think of a reason to do so, why can't subtype-core.realize() do it? What would one gain creating callbacks and calling them from base class? > > > > but that also sounds like a good idea, again for > > > consistency. >