Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/20] target-i386: move back cpu_exec_init() to init
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 04:33:07PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:48:58 -0300 > Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > > On 14/10/2016 15:33, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:24:44PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > > >> We have now the cpu_exec_realize() in realize, > > > >> so the init part must be in init. > > > >> > > > >> I've removed the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet field as > > > >> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realize(). > > > >> (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27 with > > > >> "athlon-x86_64-cpu") > > > >> > > > >> CC: Eduardo Habkost > > > >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier > > > > > > > > Resending the question I asked in my reply to v1: > > > > > > > > Instead of creating requiring each subclass to manually call > > > > cpu_exec_init()) on instance_init, why don't we move parts of > > > > cpu_exec_init()/cpu_exec_realize() code to cpu_common_initfn()? > > > > (TYPE_CPU's instance_init) > > > > > > > > (And if there's any code that needs to be run after the > > > > subclasses instance_init functions, we can just add a > > > > instance_post_init function to TYPE_CPU). > > > > > > > > > > It's done in PATCH 20/20. > > > > > > Is that what you want? > > > > Yes (except that I would have inlined the the cpu_exec_init() > > code inside cpu_common_init()). > > > > I think I expected this to be done in a single step, that > > wouldn't require touching code for all architectures three times. > > Something like: > > > > 1) Move cpu->as, cpu->num_ases, cpu->thread_id, cpu->memory > >initialization, and "memory" property registration from > >cpu_exec_init() to cpu_common_init() (no architecture code > >touched). > > 2) (optional) Rename cpu_exec_init() to cpu_exec_realize() (only > >trivial changes in architecture code) > I'd do all of it in 1 step > - split cpu_exec_init on init/realize parts > (comment in cpu_exec_init says that qom/cpu.c can't be used for > "memory" property) > - call cpu_exec_init() from cpu_common_init() > - s/cpu_exec_init/cpu_exec_realize/ in target-* Personally, I don't mind if it is done in 1 or 2 steps. I would just like to avoid changing architecture code 3 times. In addition to make review easier, it would make the decision to merge it easier for the maintainer who's going to do it (no need to wait for Acked-bys/Reviewed-bys from multiple architecture maintainers). -- Eduardo
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/20] target-i386: move back cpu_exec_init() to init
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:48:58 -0300 Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > On 14/10/2016 15:33, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:24:44PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > >> We have now the cpu_exec_realize() in realize, > > >> so the init part must be in init. > > >> > > >> I've removed the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet field as > > >> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realize(). > > >> (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27 with > > >> "athlon-x86_64-cpu") > > >> > > >> CC: Eduardo Habkost > > >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier > > > > > > Resending the question I asked in my reply to v1: > > > > > > Instead of creating requiring each subclass to manually call > > > cpu_exec_init()) on instance_init, why don't we move parts of > > > cpu_exec_init()/cpu_exec_realize() code to cpu_common_initfn()? > > > (TYPE_CPU's instance_init) > > > > > > (And if there's any code that needs to be run after the > > > subclasses instance_init functions, we can just add a > > > instance_post_init function to TYPE_CPU). > > > > > > > It's done in PATCH 20/20. > > > > Is that what you want? > > Yes (except that I would have inlined the the cpu_exec_init() > code inside cpu_common_init()). > > I think I expected this to be done in a single step, that > wouldn't require touching code for all architectures three times. > Something like: > > 1) Move cpu->as, cpu->num_ases, cpu->thread_id, cpu->memory >initialization, and "memory" property registration from >cpu_exec_init() to cpu_common_init() (no architecture code >touched). > 2) (optional) Rename cpu_exec_init() to cpu_exec_realize() (only >trivial changes in architecture code) I'd do all of it in 1 step - split cpu_exec_init on init/realize parts (comment in cpu_exec_init says that qom/cpu.c can't be used for "memory" property) - call cpu_exec_init() from cpu_common_init() - s/cpu_exec_init/cpu_exec_realize/ in target-* Follow up patches 2) 1 patch, could move parts of split cpu_exec_init() to cpu_common_init() if that makes sense. 3) 1 patch, could move cpu_exec_realize() into per target *_realizefn() it would be not small patch but still trivial 4) 1 patch, do similar (#3) thing for unrealize Perhaps #3,4 could be done in a more generic way in qom/cpu.c but I don't have a good idea how to do it.
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/20] target-i386: move back cpu_exec_init() to init
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 04:12:20PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > > On 14/10/2016 15:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > >> On 14/10/2016 15:33, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:24:44PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > We have now the cpu_exec_realize() in realize, > so the init part must be in init. > > I've removed the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet field as > unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realize(). > (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27 with > "athlon-x86_64-cpu") > > CC: Eduardo Habkost > Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier > >>> > >>> Resending the question I asked in my reply to v1: > >>> > >>> Instead of creating requiring each subclass to manually call > >>> cpu_exec_init()) on instance_init, why don't we move parts of > >>> cpu_exec_init()/cpu_exec_realize() code to cpu_common_initfn()? > >>> (TYPE_CPU's instance_init) > >>> > >>> (And if there's any code that needs to be run after the > >>> subclasses instance_init functions, we can just add a > >>> instance_post_init function to TYPE_CPU). > >>> > >> > >> It's done in PATCH 20/20. > >> > >> Is that what you want? > > > > Yes (except that I would have inlined the the cpu_exec_init() > > code inside cpu_common_init()). > > > > I think I expected this to be done in a single step, that > > wouldn't require touching code for all architectures three times. > > Something like: > > Well, I've added several steps to help to review and break nothing. To me, it made review harder. Architecture maintainers have to review 3 different patches that touch their code, instead of a single one. Anyway, I would still give my Reviewed-by line for the i386 part, if you believe it's better to do it this way. > > > 1) Move cpu->as, cpu->num_ases, cpu->thread_id, cpu->memory > >initialization, and "memory" property registration from > >cpu_exec_init() to cpu_common_init() (no architecture code > >touched). > > system_memory (for the "memory" property) is declared as static in > exec.c, so we can't move it to cpu_common_init(). In this case we can't inline it, that's true. But it still doesn't require touching each architecture 3 times (we could just create a cpu_exec_instance_init() function in exec.c and call it from cpu_common_init()). (Or we could move system_memory to MachineState, but that could be done in a follow-up patch). -- Eduardo
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/20] target-i386: move back cpu_exec_init() to init
On 14/10/2016 15:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: >> On 14/10/2016 15:33, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:24:44PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: We have now the cpu_exec_realize() in realize, so the init part must be in init. I've removed the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet field as unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realize(). (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27 with "athlon-x86_64-cpu") CC: Eduardo Habkost Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier >>> >>> Resending the question I asked in my reply to v1: >>> >>> Instead of creating requiring each subclass to manually call >>> cpu_exec_init()) on instance_init, why don't we move parts of >>> cpu_exec_init()/cpu_exec_realize() code to cpu_common_initfn()? >>> (TYPE_CPU's instance_init) >>> >>> (And if there's any code that needs to be run after the >>> subclasses instance_init functions, we can just add a >>> instance_post_init function to TYPE_CPU). >>> >> >> It's done in PATCH 20/20. >> >> Is that what you want? > > Yes (except that I would have inlined the the cpu_exec_init() > code inside cpu_common_init()). > > I think I expected this to be done in a single step, that > wouldn't require touching code for all architectures three times. > Something like: Well, I've added several steps to help to review and break nothing. > 1) Move cpu->as, cpu->num_ases, cpu->thread_id, cpu->memory >initialization, and "memory" property registration from >cpu_exec_init() to cpu_common_init() (no architecture code >touched). system_memory (for the "memory" property) is declared as static in exec.c, so we can't move it to cpu_common_init(). Laurent
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/20] target-i386: move back cpu_exec_init() to init
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > On 14/10/2016 15:33, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:24:44PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > >> We have now the cpu_exec_realize() in realize, > >> so the init part must be in init. > >> > >> I've removed the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet field as > >> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realize(). > >> (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27 with > >> "athlon-x86_64-cpu") > >> > >> CC: Eduardo Habkost > >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier > > > > Resending the question I asked in my reply to v1: > > > > Instead of creating requiring each subclass to manually call > > cpu_exec_init()) on instance_init, why don't we move parts of > > cpu_exec_init()/cpu_exec_realize() code to cpu_common_initfn()? > > (TYPE_CPU's instance_init) > > > > (And if there's any code that needs to be run after the > > subclasses instance_init functions, we can just add a > > instance_post_init function to TYPE_CPU). > > > > It's done in PATCH 20/20. > > Is that what you want? Yes (except that I would have inlined the the cpu_exec_init() code inside cpu_common_init()). I think I expected this to be done in a single step, that wouldn't require touching code for all architectures three times. Something like: 1) Move cpu->as, cpu->num_ases, cpu->thread_id, cpu->memory initialization, and "memory" property registration from cpu_exec_init() to cpu_common_init() (no architecture code touched). 2) (optional) Rename cpu_exec_init() to cpu_exec_realize() (only trivial changes in architecture code) -- Eduardo
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/20] target-i386: move back cpu_exec_init() to init
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:24:44PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > We have now the cpu_exec_realize() in realize, > so the init part must be in init. > > I've removed the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet field as > unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realize(). > (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27 with > "athlon-x86_64-cpu") > > CC: Eduardo Habkost > Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier Resending the question I asked in my reply to v1: Instead of creating requiring each subclass to manually call cpu_exec_init()) on instance_init, why don't we move parts of cpu_exec_init()/cpu_exec_realize() code to cpu_common_initfn()? (TYPE_CPU's instance_init) (And if there's any code that needs to be run after the subclasses instance_init functions, we can just add a instance_post_init function to TYPE_CPU). -- Eduardo
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/20] target-i386: move back cpu_exec_init() to init
On 14/10/2016 15:33, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:24:44PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: >> We have now the cpu_exec_realize() in realize, >> so the init part must be in init. >> >> I've removed the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet field as >> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realize(). >> (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27 with >> "athlon-x86_64-cpu") >> >> CC: Eduardo Habkost >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier > > Resending the question I asked in my reply to v1: > > Instead of creating requiring each subclass to manually call > cpu_exec_init()) on instance_init, why don't we move parts of > cpu_exec_init()/cpu_exec_realize() code to cpu_common_initfn()? > (TYPE_CPU's instance_init) > > (And if there's any code that needs to be run after the > subclasses instance_init functions, we can just add a > instance_post_init function to TYPE_CPU). > It's done in PATCH 20/20. Is that what you want? Thanks, Laurent
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/20] target-i386: move back cpu_exec_init() to init
We have now the cpu_exec_realize() in realize,
so the init part must be in init.
I've removed the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet field as
unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realize().
(tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27 with
"athlon-x86_64-cpu")
CC: Eduardo Habkost
Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier
---
target-i386/cpu.c | 13 ++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
index b977130..4741dd6 100644
--- a/target-i386/cpu.c
+++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
@@ -3158,8 +3158,11 @@ static void x86_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error
**errp)
cpu->phys_bits = 32;
}
}
-cpu_exec_init(cs);
-cpu_exec_realize(cs, &error_abort);
+cpu_exec_realize(cs, &local_err);
+if (local_err != NULL) {
+error_propagate(errp, local_err);
+return;
+}
if (tcg_enabled()) {
tcg_x86_init();
@@ -3365,6 +3368,7 @@ static void x86_cpu_initfn(Object *obj)
FeatureWord w;
cs->env_ptr = env;
+cpu_exec_init(cs);
object_property_add(obj, "family", "int",
x86_cpuid_version_get_family,
@@ -3538,11 +3542,6 @@ static void x86_cpu_common_class_init(ObjectClass *oc,
void *data)
cc->cpu_exec_exit = x86_cpu_exec_exit;
dc->cannot_instantiate_with_device_add_yet = false;
-/*
- * Reason: x86_cpu_initfn() calls cpu_exec_init(), which saves the
- * object in cpus -> dangling pointer after final object_unref().
- */
-dc->cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet = true;
}
static const TypeInfo x86_cpu_type_info = {
--
2.7.4
