On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:12:33 +0200 David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:
> The "max" CPU model behaves like "-cpu host" when KVM is enabled, and like > a CPU with the maximum possible feature set when TCG is enabled. > > While the "host" model can not be used under TCG ("kvm_required"), the > "max" model can and "Enables all features supported by the accelerator in > the current host". > > So we can treat "host" just as a special case of "max" (like x86 does). > It differs to the "qemu" CPU model under TCG such that compatibility > handling will not be performed and that some experimental CPU features > not yet part of the "qemu" model might be indicated. > > These are right now under TCG (see "qemu_MAX"): > - stfle53 > - msa5-base > - zpci > > This will result right now in the following warning when starting QEMU TCG > with the "max" model: > "qemu-system-s390x: warning: 'msa5-base' requires 'kimd-sha-512'." > > The "qemu" model (used as default in QEMU under TCG) will continue to > work without such warnings. The "max" mdel in the current form > might be interesting for kvm-unit-tests (where we would e.g. now also > test "msa5-base"). > > The "max" model is neither static nor migration safe (like the "host" > model). It is independent of the machine but dependends on the accelerator. > It can be used to detect the maximum CPU model also under TCG from upper > layers without having to care about CPU model names for CPU model > expansion. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> > --- > target/s390x/cpu_models.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) So, what's the outcome? Can I merge this with the discussed minor edits, or should I wait for a v2?