Re: MP tables do not report multiple CPUs in Qemu 6.2.0 on x86 when given -smp cpus=n flag

2022-01-20 Thread Godmar Back
Thank you for the replies. I will note that I suspected SeaBIOS as well. However, testing 6.2.0 with SeaBIOS 14 (which is the version that shipped with 6.1.1) did not change the behavior, so I concluded it was a change in Qemu, despite the fact that SeaBIOS is setting up the tables. I was about

Re: MP tables do not report multiple CPUs in Qemu 6.2.0 on x86 when given -smp cpus=n flag

2022-01-20 Thread Daniel P . Berrangé
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 03:38:26PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote: > Actually I am not quite right. This is the real change which changed the > preference. The previous change was a code re-org that preserved the > behavior: > > commit 4a0af2930a4e4f64ce551152fdb4b9e7be106408 > Author: Yanan Wang >

Re: MP tables do not report multiple CPUs in Qemu 6.2.0 on x86 when given -smp cpus=n flag

2022-01-20 Thread Ani Sinha
+qemu-devel On Thu, 20 Jan 2022, Ani Sinha wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 14:44, Godmar Back wrote: > > > after upgrading to 6.2.0, I observed that code such as MIT's xv6 (see > > > [1]) is no longer able to detect multiple CPUs. Their code

Re: MP tables do not report multiple CPUs in Qemu 6.2.0 on x86 when given -smp cpus=n flag

2022-01-20 Thread Ani Sinha
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022, Ani Sinha wrote: > +qemu-devel > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2022, Ani Sinha wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 14:44, Godmar Back wrote: > > > > after upgrading to 6.2.0, I observed that code such as MIT's xv6 (see > > > >

Re: MP tables do not report multiple CPUs in Qemu 6.2.0 on x86 when given -smp cpus=n flag

2022-01-20 Thread Igor Mammedov
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:48:20 + Peter Maydell wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 14:44, Godmar Back wrote: > > after upgrading to 6.2.0, I observed that code such as MIT's xv6 (see > > [1]) is no longer able to detect multiple CPUs. Their code works in > > 6.1.1, however. > > Hi; this isn't