On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:07:12AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 11:07:12 +0200
> From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] qemu-options: Add the description of smp-cache
> object
>
> Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Hi Markus and Daniel,
> >
> > I have the questions about the -object per cache implementation:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 02:39:29PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:39:29 +0200
> >> From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] qemu-options: Add the description of smp-cache
> >> object
> >>
> >> Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > Hi Markus,
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 03:37:43PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> >> >> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 15:37:43 +0200
> >> >> From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] qemu-options: Add the description of smp-cache
> >> >> object
> >> >>
> >> >> Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >>
> >> >> This patch is just documentation. The code got added in some previous
> >> >> patch. Would it make sense to squash this patch into that previous
> >> >> patch?
> >> >
> >> > OK, I'll merge them.
> >> >
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > Changes since RFC v2:
> >> >> > * Rewrote the document of smp-cache object.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Changes since RFC v1:
> >> >> > * Use "*_cache=topo_level" as -smp example as the original "level"
> >> >> > term for a cache has a totally different meaning. (Jonathan)
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > qemu-options.hx | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >> > 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > diff --git a/qemu-options.hx b/qemu-options.hx
> >> >> > index 8ca7f34ef0c8..4b84f4508a6e 100644
> >> >> > --- a/qemu-options.hx
> >> >> > +++ b/qemu-options.hx
> >> >> > @@ -159,6 +159,15 @@ SRST
> >> >> > ::
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -machine cxl-fmw.0.targets.0=cxl.0,cxl-fmw.0.targets.1=cxl.1,cxl-fmw.0.size=128G,cxl-fmw.0.interleave-granularity=512
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > + ``smp-cache='id'``
> >> >> > + Allows to configure cache property (now only the cache topology level).
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > + For example:
> >> >> > + ::
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > + -object '{"qom-type":"smp-cache","id":"cache","caches":[{"name":"l1d","topo":"core"},{"name":"l1i","topo":"core"},{"name":"l2","topo":"module"},{"name":"l3","topo":"die"}]}'
> >> >> > + -machine smp-cache=cache
> >> >> > ERST
> >> >> >
> >> >> > DEF("M", HAS_ARG, QEMU_OPTION_M,
> >> >> > @@ -5871,6 +5880,55 @@ SRST
> >> >> > ::
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (qemu) qom-set /objects/iothread1 poll-max-ns 100000
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > + ``-object '{"qom-type":"smp-cache","id":id,"caches":[{"name":cache_name,"topo":cache_topo}]}'``
> >> >> > + Create an smp-cache object that configures machine's cache
> >> >> > + property. Currently, cache property only include cache topology
> >> >> > + level.
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > + This option must be written in JSON format to support JSON list.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why?
> >> >
> >> > I'm not familiar with this, so I hope you could educate me if I'm wrong.
> >> >
> >> > All I know so far is for -object that defining a list can only be done in
> >> > JSON format and not with a numeric index like a keyval based option, like:
> >> >
> >> > -object smp-cache,id=cache0,caches.0.name=l1i,caches.0.topo=core: Parameter 'caches' is missing
> >> >
> >> > the above doesn't work.
> >> >
> >> > Is there any other way to specify a list in command line?
> >>
> >> The command line is a big, sprawling mess :)
> >>
> >> -object supports either a JSON or a QemuOpts argument. *Not* keyval!
> >>
> >> Both QemuOpts and keyval parse something like KEY=VALUE,... Keyval
> >> supports arrays and objects via dotted keys. QemuOpts doesn't natively
> >> support arrays and objects, but its users can hack around that
> >> limitation in various ways. -object doesn't. So you're right, it's
> >> JSON or bust here.
> >>
> >> However, if we used one object per cache instead, we could get something
> >> like
> >>
> >> -object smp-cache,name=l1d,...
> >> -object smp-cache,name=l1u,...
> >> -object smp-cache,name=l2,...
> >> ...
> >
> > Current, I use -object to create a smp_cache object, and link it to
> > MachineState by -machine,smp-cache=obj_id.
> >
> > Then for the objects per cache, how could I link them to machine?
> >
> > Is it possible that I create something static in smp_cache.c and expose
> > all the cache information to machine through some interface?
>
> Good questions. However, before we head deeper into the weeds here, I
> feel we should discuss the things below. And before we do that, I need
> a clear understanding of the use case. Elsewhere in this thread, I just
> described the use case as I understand it. Please reply there. I'll
> then come back to this message.
>
> [...]
Jonathan and I provided different use cases for x86 and Arm. Could we
come back here to continue the discussion? :)
Thanks,
Zhao
