> -----Original Message----- > From: Eduardo Habkost [mailto:ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 4:27 PM > To: Moger, Babu <Babu.Moger@xxxxxxx> > Cc: geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mst@xxxxxxxxxx; > kash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx; qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx; > marcel@xxxxxxxxxx; pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx; rth@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 1/9] i386: Helpers to encode cache > information consistently > > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 09:14:27PM +0000, Moger, Babu wrote: > > Eduardo, > > Thanks for all the comments. Will respond to each one separately. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Eduardo Habkost [mailto:ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 2:05 PM > > > To: Moger, Babu <Babu.Moger@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: mst@xxxxxxxxxx; marcel@xxxxxxxxxx; pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx; > > > rth@xxxxxxxxxxx; mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx; geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > > kash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 1/9] i386: Helpers to encode cache > > > information consistently > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I was about to apply this because I assumed it was the same patch > > > I sent in March, but then I found this: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:26:41AM -0500, Babu Moger wrote: > > > > From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Instead of having a collection of macros that need to be used in > > > > complex expressions to build CPUID data, define a CPUCacheInfo > > > > struct that can hold information about a given cache. Helper > > > > functions will take a CPUCacheInfo struct as input to encode > > > > CPUID leaves for a cache. > > > > > > > > This will help us ensure consistency between cache information > > > > CPUID leaves, and make the existing inconsistencies in CPUID info > > > > more visible. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxx> > > > > Tested-by: Geoffrey McRae <geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > [...] > > > > -#define L2_ASSOCIATIVITY 16 > > > [...] > > > > /*FIXME: CPUID leaf 0x80000006 is inconsistent with leaves 2 & 4 */ > > > > +static CPUCacheInfo l2_cache_amd = { > > > [...] > > > > + .associativity = 8, > > > [...] > > > > +}; > > > [...] > > > > case 0x80000006: > > > [...] > > > > - *ecx = (L2_SIZE_KB_AMD << 16) | \ > > > > - (AMD_ENC_ASSOC(L2_ASSOCIATIVITY) << 12) | \ > > > > - (L2_LINES_PER_TAG << 8) | (L2_LINE_SIZE); > > > [...] > > > > + encode_cache_cpuid80000006(&l2_cache_amd, > > > > + cpu->enable_l3_cache ? &l3_cache : NULL, > > > > + ecx, edx); > > > [...] > > > > > > The structs added by this patch are supposed to represent the > > > legacy cache sizes, and must match the old code. My original > > > patch set l2_cache_amd.associativity=16 because of that. > > > > > > This patch changes 0x80000006 from associativity=16 to > > > associativity=8. Why? > > > > The original code had a bug here. The associativity should have been 8. > > My earlier response from the thread > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/884880/ > > > > This should have been 8-way. This is a bug. Will fix. > > This should have been (AMD_ENC_ASSOC(L2_ASSOCIATIVITY_AMD) << > 12) > > If we want to change the associativity, we must keep the old > values on older machine-types, which was the whole purpose of the > "legacy-cache" property. > > I suggest using the new X86CPUDefinition::cache_info field if you > want to make AMD CPUs report different associativity. Ok. Sure. I will change it. Thanks > > -- > Eduardo
