8:51 a.m.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 10:24:38 -0300
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:21:05PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:58:02 -0300
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:45:21PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:01:10 -0300
> > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 02:27:49PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 17:29:02 -0300
> > > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > > +static void
x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features(X86CPUClass *xcc,
> > > > > > + strList
**missing_feats)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + X86CPU *xc;
> > > > > > + FeatureWord w;
> > > > > > + Error *err = NULL;
> > > > > > + strList **next = missing_feats;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (xcc->kvm_required && !kvm_enabled()) {
> > > > > > + strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1);
> > > > > > + new->value = g_strdup("kvm");;
> > > > > > + *missing_feats = new;
> > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + xc =
X86_CPU(object_new(object_class_get_name(OBJECT_CLASS(xcc))));
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + x86_cpu_load_features(xc, &err);
> > > > > > + if (err) {
> > > > > > + /* Errors at x86_cpu_load_features should never
happen,
> > > > > > + * but in case it does, just report the model as
not
> > > > > > + * runnable at all using the "type"
property.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1);
> > > > > > + new->value = g_strdup("type");
> > > > > > + *next = new;
> > > > > > + next = &new->next;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + x86_cpu_filter_features(xc);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) {
> > > > > > + uint32_t filtered = xc->filtered_features[w];
> > > > > > + int i;
> > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < 32; i++) {
> > > > > > + if (filtered & (1UL << i)) {
> > > > > > + strList *new = g_new0(strList, 1);
> > > > > > + new->value =
g_strdup(x86_cpu_feature_name(w, i));
> > > > > > + *next = new;
> > > > > > + next = &new->next;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > Shouldn't you add
> > > > > if (IS_AMD_CPU(env)) {
> > > > > fixup here, that realize does right after calling
x86_cpu_filter_features()
> > > >
> > > > What would it be useful for? The IS_AMD_CPU fixup runs after
> > > > x86_cpu_filter_features() (so it doesn't affect
filtered_features
> > > > at all), and filtered_features is the only field used as input to
> > > > build missing_feats.
> > > For completeness of features returned by query-cpu-definitions, I'd
guess.
> > > So that returned cpu definitions would match actually created cpus.
> >
> > For completeness of which query-cpu-definitions field, exactly?
> > There's no field in the return value of query-cpu-definitions
> > that would be affected by the AMD aliases. The AMD aliases don't
> > affect runnability of the CPU model because they aren't included
> > in the GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID check[1].
> >
> > You would be right if we did return a copy of the low-level CPUID
> > data that's seen by the guest, or if the AMD aliases were set up
> > before x86_cpu_filter_features() (so they could affect
> > filtered_features/unavailable-features), but that's not the case.
> >
> > [1] They aren't included in the GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID check because
> > the existence of the AMD aliases depend only on the
> > configured guest vendor ID, not on the host CPU.
> >
> Got it.
>
> I've tried to build with this patch but build fails with
>
> make -j32
> CHK version_gen.h
> CC i386-linux-user/target-i386/cpu.o
> target-i386/cpu.c: In function ‘x86_cpu_definition_entry’:
> target-i386/cpu.c:2199:51: error: ‘CpuDefinitionInfo’ has no member named
‘unavailable_features’
> x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features(cc, &info->unavailable_features);
> ^
> target-i386/cpu.c:2200:9: error: ‘CpuDefinitionInfo’ has no member named
‘has_unavailable_features’
> info->has_unavailable_features = true;
>
> Probably series misses a patch that adds it.
See git URLs on cover letter. Series is based on my x86-next branch.
] This series can be seen in the git branch at:
] https://github.com/ehabkost/qemu-hacks.git work/query-cpu-definitions-runnable-info
]
] The series is based on my x86-next branch:
] https://github.com/ehabkost/qemu.git x86-next
I've used this one from
yesterday as base and it didn't have
"qmp: Add runnability information to query-cpu-definitions"
I'll refetch and try again.