On Tue, Jul 20 2021, Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On 7/20/21 10:20 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 20 2021, Pierre Morel <pmo...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>> On 7/19/21 5:50 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 16 2021, Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> Is the book/drawer thing architecture specific, or is it machine >>>>> type / CPU specific. ie do /all/ the s390x machine types / CPUS >>>>> QEMU support the book/drawer concept, or only a subset. >>>> >>>> Should not be by machine type, but might be by cpu model (e.g. older >>>> hardware lacking the needed support for exposing this to the guest.) IBM >>>> folks, please correct me if I'm wrong. >>> >>> >>> Looks correct to me this is an information indicated by a facility >>> introduced with Z10 if I do not make an error. >> >> Hm. Would that become a problem if we made availability of parameters >> dependent upon a value in the machine (see the other thread I cc:ed you >> on?) >> > > Why? > The parameter can always be there, it is just that with older cpu model > we will not report the topology information to the guest.
If we are fine with a configuration like that, sure. > > The discussion on dies and on smp_dies_supported in this thread will be > interesting to follow because in my opinion dies for X or books/drawers > for Z are to be treated equally. Agreed. There was also talk of "clusters" in that thread, which I assume are yet anothor machine specific parameter.
