Re: [PATCH v11 09/11] s390x/cpu topology: add topology machine property

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 11/15/22 14:48, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 11/3/22 18:01, Pierre Morel wrote:
We keep the possibility to switch on/off the topology on newer
machines with the property topology=[on|off].

The code has changed. You will need to rebase. May be after the
8.0 machine is introduced, or include Cornelia's patch in the
respin.

https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20221111124534.129111-1-cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx/


Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  include/hw/boards.h                |  3 +++
  include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h    |  8 +++-----
  include/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.h |  1 +
  hw/core/machine.c                  |  3 +++
  hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c            | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
  hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c         | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  util/qemu-config.c                 |  4 ++++
  qemu-options.hx                    |  6 +++++-
  8 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/hw/boards.h b/include/hw/boards.h
index 311ed17e18..67147c47bf 100644
--- a/include/hw/boards.h
+++ b/include/hw/boards.h
@@ -379,6 +379,9 @@ struct MachineState {
      } \
      type_init(machine_initfn##_register_types)
+extern GlobalProperty hw_compat_7_2[];
+extern const size_t hw_compat_7_2_len;
+
  extern GlobalProperty hw_compat_7_1[];
  extern const size_t hw_compat_7_1_len;
diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
index 6fec10e032..f566394302 100644
--- a/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
+++ b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
  #include "hw/qdev-core.h"
  #include "qom/object.h"
+#include "cpu.h"
+#include "hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.h"
  #define S390_TOPOLOGY_CPU_IFL 0x03
  #define S390_TOPOLOGY_MAX_ORIGIN ((63 + S390_MAX_CPUS) / 64)
@@ -38,10 +40,6 @@ struct S390Topology {
  OBJECT_DECLARE_SIMPLE_TYPE(S390Topology, S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY)
  void s390_topology_new_cpu(S390CPU *cpu);
-
-static inline bool s390_has_topology(void)
-{
-    return false;
-}
+bool s390_has_topology(void);
  #endif
diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.h b/include/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.h
index 89fca3f79f..d7602aedda 100644
--- a/include/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.h
+++ b/include/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.h
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct S390CcwMachineState {
      bool dea_key_wrap;
      bool pv;
      bool zpcii_disable;
+    bool cpu_topology;
      uint8_t loadparm[8];
      void *topology;
  };
diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
index aa520e74a8..4f46d4ef23 100644
--- a/hw/core/machine.c
+++ b/hw/core/machine.c
@@ -40,6 +40,9 @@
  #include "hw/virtio/virtio-pci.h"
  #include "qom/object_interfaces.h"
+GlobalProperty hw_compat_7_2[] = {};
+const size_t hw_compat_7_2_len = G_N_ELEMENTS(hw_compat_7_2);
+
  GlobalProperty hw_compat_7_1[] = {};
  const size_t hw_compat_7_1_len = G_N_ELEMENTS(hw_compat_7_1);
diff --git a/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c b/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c
index fc220bd8ac..c1550cc1e8 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c
+++ b/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c
@@ -73,6 +73,25 @@ void s390_handle_ptf(S390CPU *cpu, uint8_t r1, uintptr_t ra)
      }
  }
+bool s390_has_topology(void)
+{
+    static S390CcwMachineState *ccw;
+    Object *obj;
+
+    if (ccw) {
+        return ccw->cpu_topology;

Shouldn't we test the capability also ?

     return s390mc->topology_capable && ccw->cpu_topology;

yes thanks


+    }
+
+    /* we have to bail out for the "none" machine */
+    obj = object_dynamic_cast(qdev_get_machine(),
+                              TYPE_S390_CCW_MACHINE);
+    if (!obj) {
+        return false;
+    }

Should be an assert I think.

OK


+    ccw = S390_CCW_MACHINE(obj);
+    return ccw->cpu_topology;
+}
+
  /*
   * s390_topology_new_cpu:
   * @cpu: a pointer to the new CPU
diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
index f1a9d6e793..ebb5615337 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
+++ b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
@@ -710,6 +710,26 @@ bool hpage_1m_allowed(void)
      return get_machine_class()->hpage_1m_allowed;
  }
+static inline bool machine_get_topology(Object *obj, Error **errp)
+{
+    S390CcwMachineState *ms = S390_CCW_MACHINE(obj);
+
+    return ms->cpu_topology;
+}
+
+static inline void machine_set_topology(Object *obj, bool value, Error **errp)
+{
+    S390CcwMachineState *ms = S390_CCW_MACHINE(obj);

You could introduce :

        S390CcwMachineClass *s390mc = S390_CCW_MACHINE_GET_CLASS(ms);

Yes thanks



+
+    if (!get_machine_class()->topology_capable) {

and
             !s390mc->topology_capable

+        error_setg(errp, "Property cpu-topology not available on machine %s",
+                   get_machine_class()->parent_class.name);
+        return;
+    }
+
+    ms->cpu_topology = value;
+}
+
  static void machine_get_loadparm(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
                                   const char *name, void *opaque,
                                   Error **errp)
@@ -809,6 +829,12 @@ static void ccw_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
                                     machine_set_zpcii_disable);
      object_class_property_set_description(oc, "zpcii-disable",
              "disable zPCI interpretation facilties");
+
+    object_class_property_add_bool(oc, "topology",
+                                   machine_get_topology,
+                                   machine_set_topology);
+    object_class_property_set_description(oc, "topology",
+            "enable CPU topology");
  }
  static inline void s390_machine_initfn(Object *obj)
@@ -818,6 +844,7 @@ static inline void s390_machine_initfn(Object *obj)
      ms->aes_key_wrap = true;
      ms->dea_key_wrap = true;
      ms->zpcii_disable = false;
+    ms->cpu_topology = true;
  }
  static const TypeInfo ccw_machine_info = {
@@ -888,6 +915,7 @@ static void ccw_machine_7_1_instance_options(MachineState *machine)
      s390_cpudef_featoff_greater(16, 1, S390_FEAT_PAIE);
      s390_set_qemu_cpu_model(0x8561, 15, 1, qemu_cpu_feat);
      ms->zpcii_disable = true;
+    ms->cpu_topology = true;

shouldn't this be false ?

:) yes
I forgot to change this when I change the logic.

Thanks,
Pierre

--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux