From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E87C433E0 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:11:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A121464EF8 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:11:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A121464EF8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:46744 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lHi8m-0000Kd-Qe for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 02:11:20 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38674) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lHi7k-0008Cy-2u; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 02:10:16 -0500 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32]:3056) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lHi7f-0000EA-I3; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 02:10:15 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by szxga06-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DrhmB1BFhzjV6m; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 15:08:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.186.67] (10.174.186.67) by DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.498.0; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 15:09:42 +0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] hw/acpi/aml-build: add processor hierarchy node structure To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Andrew Jones References: <20210225085627.2263-1-fangying1@huawei.com> <20210225085627.2263-5-fangying1@huawei.com> <20210225114732.5f7gqgl7lym7d4hs@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <5afc6d2b-6e16-d44c-13cf-bd75c63f89db@huawei.com> <20210301093919.yt65iz26p6niairw@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> <20210301103619-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Ying Fang Message-ID: <6ff19198-4ec7-dbc1-7553-6460271f50b0@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 15:09:41 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210301103619-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.186.67] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Received-SPF: pass client-ip=45.249.212.32; envelope-from=fangying1@huawei.com; helo=szxga06-in.huawei.com X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, salil.mehta@huawei.com, zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com, Henglong Fan , alistair.francis@wdc.com, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, imammedo@redhat.com Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 3/1/2021 11:50 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 01, 2021 at 10:39:19AM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:23:03AM +0800, Ying Fang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/25/2021 7:47 PM, Andrew Jones wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 04:56:26PM +0800, Ying Fang wrote: >>>>> Add the processor hierarchy node structures to build ACPI information >>>>> for CPU topology. Since the private resources may be used to describe >>>>> cache hierarchy and it is variable among different topology level, >>>>> three helpers are introduced to describe the hierarchy. >>>>> >>>>> (1) build_socket_hierarchy for socket description >>>>> (2) build_processor_hierarchy for processor description >>>>> (3) build_smt_hierarchy for thread (logic processor) description >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ying Fang >>>>> Signed-off-by: Henglong Fan >>>>> --- >>>>> hw/acpi/aml-build.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h | 13 ++++++++++++ >>>>> include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h | 7 +++++++ >>>>> 3 files changed, 60 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c >>>>> index a2cd7a5830..a0af3e9d73 100644 >>>>> --- a/hw/acpi/aml-build.c >>>>> +++ b/hw/acpi/aml-build.c >>>>> @@ -1888,6 +1888,46 @@ void build_slit(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *ms, >>>>> table_data->len - slit_start, 1, oem_id, oem_table_id); >>>>> } >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * ACPI 6.3: 5.2.29.1 Processor hierarchy node structure (Type 0) >>>>> + */ >>>>> +void build_socket_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t parent, uint32_t id) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + build_append_byte(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR); /* Type 0 - processor */ >>>>> + build_append_byte(tbl, 20); /* Length, no private resources */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 2); /* Reserved */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_PHYSICAL_PACKAGE, 4); >>>> >>>> Missing '/* Flags */' >>> >>> Will fix. >>> >>>> >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, parent, 4); /* Parent */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, id, 4); /* ACPI processor ID */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 4); /* Number of private resources */ >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +void build_processor_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t flags, >>>>> + uint32_t parent, uint32_t id) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + build_append_byte(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR); /* Type 0 - processor */ >>>>> + build_append_byte(tbl, 20); /* Length, no private resources */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 2); /* Reserved */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, flags, 4); /* Flags */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, parent, 4); /* Parent */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, id, 4); /* ACPI processor ID */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 4); /* Number of private resources */ >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +void build_thread_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t parent, uint32_t id) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + build_append_byte(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR); /* Type 0 - processor */ >>>>> + build_append_byte(tbl, 20); /* Length, no private resources */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 2); /* Reserved */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID | >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_IS_THREAD | >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_LEAF_NODE, 4); /* Flags */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, parent , 4); /* parent */ >>>> >>>> 'parent' not capitalized. We want these comments to exactly match the text >>>> in the spec. >>> >>> Will fix. >>> >>>> >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, id, 4); /* ACPI processor ID */ >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, 0, 4); /* Num of private resources */ >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> /* build rev1/rev3/rev5.1 FADT */ >>>>> void build_fadt(GArray *tbl, BIOSLinker *linker, const AcpiFadtData *f, >>>>> const char *oem_id, const char *oem_table_id) >>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h b/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h >>>>> index cf9f44299c..45e10d886f 100644 >>>>> --- a/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h >>>>> +++ b/include/hw/acpi/acpi-defs.h >>>>> @@ -618,4 +618,17 @@ struct AcpiIortRC { >>>>> } QEMU_PACKED; >>>>> typedef struct AcpiIortRC AcpiIortRC; >>>>> +enum { >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR = 0, >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_CACHE, >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_ID, >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_RESERVED >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> +#define ACPI_PPTT_PHYSICAL_PACKAGE (1) >>>>> +#define ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID (1 << 1) >>>>> +#define ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_IS_THREAD (1 << 2) /* ACPI 6.3 */ >>>>> +#define ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_LEAF_NODE (1 << 3) /* ACPI 6.3 */ >>>>> +#define ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_IDENTICAL (1 << 4) /* ACPI 6.3 */ > > You need to quote specific place in spec where this appeared, not > just version. and what about previous ones? Thanks, Will fix. > > >>>>> + >>>>> #endif >>>>> diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h b/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h >>>>> index 380d3e3924..7f0ca1a198 100644 >>>>> --- a/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h >>>>> +++ b/include/hw/acpi/aml-build.h >>>>> @@ -462,6 +462,13 @@ void build_srat_memory(AcpiSratMemoryAffinity *numamem, uint64_t base, >>>>> void build_slit(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker, MachineState *ms, >>>>> const char *oem_id, const char *oem_table_id); >>>>> +void build_socket_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t parent, uint32_t id); >>>>> + >>>>> +void build_processor_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t flags, >>>>> + uint32_t parent, uint32_t id); >>>>> + >>>>> +void build_thread_hierarchy(GArray *tbl, uint32_t parent, uint32_t id); >>>> >>>> Why does build_processor_hierarchy() take a flags argument, but the >>>> others don't? Why not just have a single 'flags' taking function, >>>> like [*] that works for all of them? I think that answer to that is >>> >>> Yes, you are right. >>> >>>> that when cache topology support is added it's better to break these >>>> into separate functions, but should we do that now? It seems odd to >>>> be introducing unused defines and this API before it's necessary. >>> So it is better for us to keep just one common build_processor_hierarchy >>> API here in your opinion. >> >> Well, a consistent API without unused defines. Whether or not that's >> a single common function or not isn't that important. >> >> Thanks, >> drew > > Yes, the preferred way is code comments: > E.g. > > build_append_byte(tbl, ACPI_PPTT_TYPE_PROCESSOR); /* Type 0 - processor */ > > should be > > build_append_byte(tbl, 0); /* Type 0 - processor */ > > > similar: > >>>>> + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID | >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_IS_THREAD | >>>>> + ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_LEAF_NODE, 4); /* Flags */ > > should be > > + build_append_int_noprefix(tbl, /* Processor Structure Flags */ > + (1 << 1) /* ACPI Processor ID valid */| > + (1 << 2) /* Processor is a Thread */) | > + (1 << 3) /* Node is a Leaf */, 4); > > where you would make sure the text matches the spec verbatim. > > also note how for multi-line code comments precede the code. > For single-line they can come after the code. Thanks, will fix it as your suggestions. > >>> >>>> >>>> [*] https://github.com/rhdrjones/qemu/commit/439b38d67ca1f2cbfa5b9892a822b651ebd05c11 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> drew >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> void build_fadt(GArray *tbl, BIOSLinker *linker, const AcpiFadtData *f, >>>>> const char *oem_id, const char *oem_table_id); >>>>> -- >>>>> 2.23.0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ying. >>> > > . >