On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 03:39:12PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 05:56:55 -0400 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:22:49AM -0400, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > As an alternative to passing to firmware topology info via new fwcfg files > > > so it could recreate APIC IDs based on it and order CPUs are enumerated, > > > > > > extend CPU hotplug interface to return APIC ID as response to the new > > > command > > > CPHP_GET_CPU_ID_CMD. > > > > One big piece missing here is motivation: > I thought the only willing reader was Laszlo (who is aware of context) > so I skipped on details and confused others :/ > > > Who's going to use this interface? > In current state it's for firmware, since ACPI tables can cheat > by having APIC IDs statically built in. > > If we were creating CPU objects in ACPI dynamically > we would be using this command as well.
I'm not sure how it's even possible to create devices dynamically. Well I guess it's possible with LoadTable. Is this what you had in mind? > It would save > us quite a bit space in ACPI blob but it would be a pain > to debug and diagnose problems in ACPI tables, so I'd rather > stay with static CPU descriptions in ACPI tables for the sake > of maintenance. > > So far CPU hotplug was used by the ACPI, so we didn't > > really commit to a fixed interface too strongly. > > > > Is this a replacement to Laszlo's fw cfg interface? > > If yes is the idea that OVMF going to depend on CPU hotplug directly then? > > It does not depend on it now, does it? > It doesn't, but then it doesn't support cpu hotplug, > OVMF(SMM) needs to cooperate with QEMU "and" ACPI tables to perform > the task and using the same interface/code path between all involved > parties makes the task easier with the least amount of duplicated > interfaces and more robust. > > Re-implementing alternative interface for firmware (fwcfg or what not) > would work as well, but it's only question of time when ACPI and > this new interface disagree on how world works and process falls > apart. Then we should consider switching acpi to use fw cfg. Or build another interface that can scale. > > If answers to all of the above is yes, then I don't really like it: it > > is better to keep all paravirt stuff in one place, namely in fw cfg. > Lets discuss, what cpu hotplug fwcfg interface could look like in > [PATCH 3/4] hw/i386: add facility to expose CPU topology over fw-cfg > mail thread and clarify (dis)likes with concrete reasons. > > So far I managed to convince myself that we ought to reuse > and extend current CPU hotplug interface with firmware features, > to endup with consolidated cpu hotplug process without > introducing duplicate ABIs, but I could be wrong so > lets see if fwcfg will be the better approach. > > > > > CC: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > > > CC: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > > > CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> > > > CC: Gerd Hoffmann <kra...@redhat.com> > > > CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > > > CC: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > > > CC: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> > > > > > > Igor Mammedov (3): > > > acpi: cpuhp: fix 'Command data' description is spec > > > acpi: cpuhp: add typical usecases into spec > > > acpi: cpuhp: add CPHP_GET_CPU_ID_CMD command > > > > > > docs/specs/acpi_cpu_hotplug.txt | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > hw/acpi/cpu.c | 15 +++++++++++++ > > > hw/acpi/trace-events | 1 + > > > 3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > -- > > > 2.18.1 > >