On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 06:24:07PM -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 21:02:33 +0100, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 02:56:10PM -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 14:47:33 -0400, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c b/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c
> > > > index e2d15a1..395d1b5 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c
> (snip)
> > >
> > > Should we update max_cpus to just NUM_APU_CPUS as well for these boards?
> > > -smp 5 or 6 (NUM_APU + NUM_RPU) still gets us 4 vCPUs.
> > >
> > > I see there's code for RPU cpus but it seems disabled at compile-time
> > > at xlnx-zynqmp.c:431:
> > > DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("has_rpu", XlnxZynqMPState, has_rpu, false)
> > > Or is there a run-time way to override this?
> >
> > Device properties can be overridden using -global, e.g.:
> >
> > -global driver=xlnx,,zynqmp,property=has_rpu,value=on
> >
> > (",," is how commas are escaped in QEMU options)
>
> Very interesting! This raises two separate issues.
>
> 1. Using this feature breaks 55c3cee ("qom: Introduce
> CPUClass.tcg_initialize",
> 2017-10-24). For instance:
> qemu-system-aarch64 -machine xlnx-zcu102 \
> -global driver=xlnx,,zynqmp,property=has_rpu,value=on
> This will try to initialize TCG twice. The reason is that the second
> set of CPUs (the "RPUs") is of a different "object type name", which ends
> up as a different CPUClass. In xlnx-zynqmp.c:
>
> for (i = 0; i < XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_RPU_CPUS; i++) {
> char *name;
>
> object_initialize(&s->rpu_cpu[i], sizeof(s->rpu_cpu[i]),
> "cortex-r5-" TYPE_ARM_CPU);
> This hunk only runs when we use the -global override.
>
> This other hunk always runs. It initializes the "APUs":
> for (i = 0; i < XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS; i++) {
> object_initialize(&s->apu_cpu[i], sizeof(s->apu_cpu[i]),
> "cortex-a53-" TYPE_ARM_CPU);
>
> A trivial, ugly fix would be to either use the same "object name"
> for both sets of CPUs or (re)introduce a static variable in
> arm_translate_init.
> I'd prefer to be able to set tcg_initialized field directly for
> the RPU's CPUClass. Is that possible? I don't know much about
> qom/object code, so any good suggestion here would be appreciated.
IMO, initialization state doesn't belong to CPUClass. We already
have a single accelerator object in MachineState::accelerator,
and tcg_initialized could be moved to a AccelState::initialized
field.
>
> 2. Coming back to the original problem: given that we can get
> additional vCPUs, I think we need an additional flag to signal
> this. Otherwise we'll have to always do "max_cpus = mc.max_cpus",
> which for most machines would be a huge waste of TCG regions.
> See delta below.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Emilio
>
> diff --git a/include/hw/boards.h b/include/hw/boards.h
> index 62f160e..8c8ce51 100644
> --- a/include/hw/boards.h
> +++ b/include/hw/boards.h
> @@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ typedef struct {
> /**
> * MachineClass:
> * @max_cpus: maximum number of CPUs supported. Default: 1
> + * @force_max_cpus: if set, force the global max_cpus to match @max_cpus
> * @min_cpus: minimum number of CPUs supported. Default: 1
> * @default_cpus: number of CPUs instantiated if none are specified.
> Default: 1
> * @get_hotplug_handler: this function is called during bus-less
If we have a field containing the default value for smp_cpus
(default_cpus), what about a default_max_cpus field for the
default value of max_cpus? This could make the rules a bit
easier to follow.
(But I wonder if there's a way we can do this without introducing
another MachineClass field and making the initialization code
more complex.)
The fact that MachineClass::max_cpus and the 'max_cpus' globals
have completely different meanings makes this confusing enough.
Maybe we should rename the 'max_cpus' global variable to
'max_hotplug_cpus'.
> @@ -181,7 +182,8 @@ struct MachineClass {
> no_sdcard:1,
> has_dynamic_sysbus:1,
> pci_allow_0_address:1,
> - legacy_fw_cfg_order:1;
> + legacy_fw_cfg_order:1,
> + force_max_cpus;
> int is_default;
> const char *default_machine_opts;
> const char *default_boot_order;
> diff --git a/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c b/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c
> index 395d1b5..e406dc3 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/xlnx-zcu102.c
> @@ -186,6 +186,7 @@ static void xlnx_ep108_machine_class_init(ObjectClass
> *oc, void *data)
> mc->units_per_default_bus = 1;
> mc->ignore_memory_transaction_failures = true;
> mc->max_cpus = XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS + XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_RPU_CPUS;
> + mc->force_max_cpus = 1;
> mc->min_cpus = XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS;
> mc->default_cpus = XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS;
> }
> @@ -244,6 +245,7 @@ static void xlnx_zcu102_machine_class_init(ObjectClass
> *oc, void *data)
> mc->units_per_default_bus = 1;
> mc->ignore_memory_transaction_failures = true;
> mc->max_cpus = XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS + XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_RPU_CPUS;
> + mc->force_max_cpus = 1;
> mc->min_cpus = XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS;
> mc->default_cpus = XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_APU_CPUS;
> }
> diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c
> index 3ca5ee8..a21183d 100644
> --- a/vl.c
> +++ b/vl.c
> @@ -4339,6 +4339,15 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
> max_cpus = machine_class->default_cpus;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Some boards can instantiate additional CPUs, e.g. by overriding
> + * device params via -global arguments, so they enforce the value
> + * that max_cpus should take.
> + */
> + if (machine_class->force_max_cpus) {
> + max_cpus = machine_class->max_cpus;
> + }
> +
> /* sanity-check smp_cpus and max_cpus */
> if (smp_cpus < machine_class->min_cpus) {
> error_report("Invalid SMP CPUs %d. The min CPUs "
--
Eduardo
