| Message ID | 20241001123807.605-9-alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | x86: Expose consistent topology to guests | expand |
On 01.10.2024 14:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > --- a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h > +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h > @@ -542,6 +542,22 @@ int x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible(const struct cpu_policy *host, > const struct cpu_policy *guest, > struct cpu_policy_errors *err); > > +/** > + * Synthesise topology information in `p` given high-level constraints > + * > + * Topology is given in various fields accross several leaves, some of > + * which are vendor-specific. This function uses the policy itself to > + * derive such leaves from threads/core and cores/package. Isn't it more like s/uses/fills/ (and the rest of the sentence then possibly adjust some to match)? The policy looks to be purely an output here (except for the vendor field). > --- a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c > +++ b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c > @@ -2,6 +2,94 @@ > > #include <xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h> > > +static unsigned int order(unsigned int n) > +{ > + ASSERT(n); /* clz(0) is UB */ > + > + return 8 * sizeof(n) - __builtin_clz(n); > +} > + > +int x86_topo_from_parts(struct cpu_policy *p, > + unsigned int threads_per_core, > + unsigned int cores_per_pkg) > +{ > + unsigned int threads_per_pkg = threads_per_core * cores_per_pkg; What about the (admittedly absurd) case of this overflowing? > + unsigned int apic_id_size; > + > + if ( !p || !threads_per_core || !cores_per_pkg ) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + p->basic.max_leaf = MAX(0xb, p->basic.max_leaf); Better use the type-safe max() (and min() further down)? > + memset(p->topo.raw, 0, sizeof(p->topo.raw)); > + > + /* thread level */ > + p->topo.subleaf[0].nr_logical = threads_per_core; > + p->topo.subleaf[0].id_shift = 0; > + p->topo.subleaf[0].level = 0; > + p->topo.subleaf[0].type = 1; > + if ( threads_per_core > 1 ) > + p->topo.subleaf[0].id_shift = order(threads_per_core - 1); > + > + /* core level */ > + p->topo.subleaf[1].nr_logical = cores_per_pkg; > + if ( p->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL ) > + p->topo.subleaf[1].nr_logical = threads_per_pkg; > + p->topo.subleaf[1].id_shift = p->topo.subleaf[0].id_shift; > + p->topo.subleaf[1].level = 1; > + p->topo.subleaf[1].type = 2; > + if ( cores_per_pkg > 1 ) > + p->topo.subleaf[1].id_shift += order(cores_per_pkg - 1); > + > + apic_id_size = p->topo.subleaf[1].id_shift; > + > + /* > + * Contrary to what the name might seem to imply. HTT is an enabler for > + * SMP and there's no harm in setting it even with a single vCPU. > + */ > + p->basic.htt = true; > + p->basic.lppp = MIN(0xff, threads_per_pkg); > + > + switch ( p->x86_vendor ) > + { > + case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: { > + struct cpuid_cache_leaf *sl = p->cache.subleaf; > + > + for ( size_t i = 0; sl->type && > + i < ARRAY_SIZE(p->cache.raw); i++, sl++ ) > + { > + sl->cores_per_package = cores_per_pkg - 1; > + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_core - 1; > + if ( sl->type == 3 /* unified cache */ ) > + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_pkg - 1; I wasn't able to find documentation for this, well, anomaly. Can you please point me at where this is spelled out? Jan
On Wed Oct 9, 2024 at 3:45 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 01.10.2024 14:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > --- a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h > > +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h > > @@ -542,6 +542,22 @@ int x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible(const struct cpu_policy *host, > > const struct cpu_policy *guest, > > struct cpu_policy_errors *err); > > > > +/** > > + * Synthesise topology information in `p` given high-level constraints > > + * > > + * Topology is given in various fields accross several leaves, some of > > + * which are vendor-specific. This function uses the policy itself to > > + * derive such leaves from threads/core and cores/package. > > Isn't it more like s/uses/fills/ (and the rest of the sentence then > possibly adjust some to match)? The policy looks to be purely an output > here (except for the vendor field). Sure. > > > --- a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c > > +++ b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c > > @@ -2,6 +2,94 @@ > > > > #include <xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h> > > > > +static unsigned int order(unsigned int n) > > +{ > > + ASSERT(n); /* clz(0) is UB */ > > + > > + return 8 * sizeof(n) - __builtin_clz(n); > > +} > > + > > +int x86_topo_from_parts(struct cpu_policy *p, > > + unsigned int threads_per_core, > > + unsigned int cores_per_pkg) > > +{ > > + unsigned int threads_per_pkg = threads_per_core * cores_per_pkg; > > What about the (admittedly absurd) case of this overflowing? Each of them individually could overflow the fields in which they are used. Does returning EINVAL if either threads_per_core or cores_per_pkg overflow the INTEL structure j > > > + unsigned int apic_id_size; > > + > > + if ( !p || !threads_per_core || !cores_per_pkg ) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + p->basic.max_leaf = MAX(0xb, p->basic.max_leaf); > > Better use the type-safe max() (and min() further down)? Sure > > > + memset(p->topo.raw, 0, sizeof(p->topo.raw)); > > + > > + /* thread level */ > > + p->topo.subleaf[0].nr_logical = threads_per_core; > > + p->topo.subleaf[0].id_shift = 0; > > + p->topo.subleaf[0].level = 0; > > + p->topo.subleaf[0].type = 1; > > + if ( threads_per_core > 1 ) > > + p->topo.subleaf[0].id_shift = order(threads_per_core - 1); > > + > > + /* core level */ > > + p->topo.subleaf[1].nr_logical = cores_per_pkg; > > + if ( p->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL ) > > + p->topo.subleaf[1].nr_logical = threads_per_pkg; > > + p->topo.subleaf[1].id_shift = p->topo.subleaf[0].id_shift; > > + p->topo.subleaf[1].level = 1; > > + p->topo.subleaf[1].type = 2; > > + if ( cores_per_pkg > 1 ) > > + p->topo.subleaf[1].id_shift += order(cores_per_pkg - 1); > > + > > + apic_id_size = p->topo.subleaf[1].id_shift; > > + > > + /* > > + * Contrary to what the name might seem to imply. HTT is an enabler for > > + * SMP and there's no harm in setting it even with a single vCPU. > > + */ > > + p->basic.htt = true; > > + p->basic.lppp = MIN(0xff, threads_per_pkg); > > + > > + switch ( p->x86_vendor ) > > + { > > + case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: { > > + struct cpuid_cache_leaf *sl = p->cache.subleaf; > > + > > + for ( size_t i = 0; sl->type && > > + i < ARRAY_SIZE(p->cache.raw); i++, sl++ ) > > + { > > + sl->cores_per_package = cores_per_pkg - 1; > > + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_core - 1; > > + if ( sl->type == 3 /* unified cache */ ) > > + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_pkg - 1; > > I wasn't able to find documentation for this, well, anomaly. Can you please > point me at where this is spelled out? That's showing all unified caches as caches covering the whole package. We could do it the other way around (but I don't want to reverse engineer what the host policy says because that's irrelevant). There's nothing in the SDM (AFAIK) forcing L2 or L3 to behave one way or another, so we get to choose. I thought it more helpful to make all unified caches unified across the package. to give more information in the leaf. My own system exposes 2 unified caches (data trimmed for space): ``` cpuid deterministic cache parameters (4): --- cache 0 --- cache type = data cache (1) cache level = 0x1 (1) maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1 (1) maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) --- cache 1 --- cache type = instruction cache (2) cache level = 0x1 (1) maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1 (1) maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) --- cache 2 --- cache type = unified cache (3) cache level = 0x2 (2) maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1 (1) maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) --- cache 3 --- cache type = unified cache (3) cache level = 0x3 (3) maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1f (31) maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) --- cache 4 --- cache type = no more caches (0) ``` > > Jan Cheers, Alejandro
On 09.10.2024 19:57, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Wed Oct 9, 2024 at 3:45 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 01.10.2024 14:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> --- a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c >>> +++ b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c >>> @@ -2,6 +2,94 @@ >>> >>> #include <xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h> >>> >>> +static unsigned int order(unsigned int n) >>> +{ >>> + ASSERT(n); /* clz(0) is UB */ >>> + >>> + return 8 * sizeof(n) - __builtin_clz(n); >>> +} >>> + >>> +int x86_topo_from_parts(struct cpu_policy *p, >>> + unsigned int threads_per_core, >>> + unsigned int cores_per_pkg) >>> +{ >>> + unsigned int threads_per_pkg = threads_per_core * cores_per_pkg; >> >> What about the (admittedly absurd) case of this overflowing? > > Each of them individually could overflow the fields in which they are used. > > Does returning EINVAL if either threads_per_core or cores_per_pkg overflow the > INTEL structure j The sentence looks unfinished, so I can only vaguely say that my answer to the question would likely be "yes". >>> + switch ( p->x86_vendor ) >>> + { >>> + case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: { >>> + struct cpuid_cache_leaf *sl = p->cache.subleaf; >>> + >>> + for ( size_t i = 0; sl->type && >>> + i < ARRAY_SIZE(p->cache.raw); i++, sl++ ) >>> + { >>> + sl->cores_per_package = cores_per_pkg - 1; >>> + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_core - 1; >>> + if ( sl->type == 3 /* unified cache */ ) >>> + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_pkg - 1; >> >> I wasn't able to find documentation for this, well, anomaly. Can you please >> point me at where this is spelled out? > > That's showing all unified caches as caches covering the whole package. We > could do it the other way around (but I don't want to reverse engineer what the > host policy says because that's irrelevant). There's nothing in the SDM (AFAIK) > forcing L2 or L3 to behave one way or another, so we get to choose. I thought > it more helpful to make all unified caches unified across the package. to give > more information in the leaf. > > My own system exposes 2 unified caches (data trimmed for space): > > ``` cpuid > > deterministic cache parameters (4): > --- cache 0 --- > cache type = data cache (1) > cache level = 0x1 (1) > maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1 (1) > maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) > --- cache 1 --- > cache type = instruction cache (2) > cache level = 0x1 (1) > maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1 (1) > maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) > --- cache 2 --- > cache type = unified cache (3) > cache level = 0x2 (2) > maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1 (1) Note how this is different ... > maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) > --- cache 3 --- > cache type = unified cache (3) > cache level = 0x3 (3) > maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1f (31) ... from this, whereas your code would make it the same. Especially if this is something you do beyond / outside the spec, it imo needs reasoning about in fair detail in the description. Jan
On Thu Oct 10, 2024 at 8:54 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 09.10.2024 19:57, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > On Wed Oct 9, 2024 at 3:45 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 01.10.2024 14:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > >>> --- a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c > >>> +++ b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c > >>> @@ -2,6 +2,94 @@ > >>> > >>> #include <xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h> > >>> > >>> +static unsigned int order(unsigned int n) > >>> +{ > >>> + ASSERT(n); /* clz(0) is UB */ > >>> + > >>> + return 8 * sizeof(n) - __builtin_clz(n); > >>> +} > >>> + > >>> +int x86_topo_from_parts(struct cpu_policy *p, > >>> + unsigned int threads_per_core, > >>> + unsigned int cores_per_pkg) > >>> +{ > >>> + unsigned int threads_per_pkg = threads_per_core * cores_per_pkg; > >> > >> What about the (admittedly absurd) case of this overflowing? > > > > Each of them individually could overflow the fields in which they are used. > > > > Does returning EINVAL if either threads_per_core or cores_per_pkg overflow the > > INTEL structure j > > The sentence looks unfinished, so I can only vaguely say that my answer to > the question would likely be "yes". It was indeed. Regardless, the number of bits available in Intel's cache subleaves is rather limited, so I'll be clipping those to the maximum on overflow and... > > >>> + switch ( p->x86_vendor ) > >>> + { > >>> + case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: { > >>> + struct cpuid_cache_leaf *sl = p->cache.subleaf; > >>> + > >>> + for ( size_t i = 0; sl->type && > >>> + i < ARRAY_SIZE(p->cache.raw); i++, sl++ ) > >>> + { > >>> + sl->cores_per_package = cores_per_pkg - 1; > >>> + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_core - 1; > >>> + if ( sl->type == 3 /* unified cache */ ) > >>> + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_pkg - 1; > >> > >> I wasn't able to find documentation for this, well, anomaly. Can you please > >> point me at where this is spelled out? > > > > That's showing all unified caches as caches covering the whole package. We > > could do it the other way around (but I don't want to reverse engineer what the > > host policy says because that's irrelevant). There's nothing in the SDM (AFAIK) > > forcing L2 or L3 to behave one way or another, so we get to choose. I thought > > it more helpful to make all unified caches unified across the package. to give > > more information in the leaf. > > > > My own system exposes 2 unified caches (data trimmed for space): > > > > ``` cpuid > > > > deterministic cache parameters (4): > > --- cache 0 --- > > cache type = data cache (1) > > cache level = 0x1 (1) > > maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1 (1) > > maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) > > --- cache 1 --- > > cache type = instruction cache (2) > > cache level = 0x1 (1) > > maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1 (1) > > maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) > > --- cache 2 --- > > cache type = unified cache (3) > > cache level = 0x2 (2) > > maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1 (1) > > Note how this is different ... > > > maximum IDs for cores in pkg = 0xf (15) > > --- cache 3 --- > > cache type = unified cache (3) > > cache level = 0x3 (3) > > maximum IDs for CPUs sharing cache = 0x1f (31) > > ... from this, whereas your code would make it the same. > > Especially if this is something you do beyond / outside the spec, it imo > needs reasoning about in fair detail in the description. ... given the risk of clipping, I'll get rid of that conditional too to make it easier for a non-clipped number to be reported. I'll write in the commit message the behaviour on overflow for these leaves. > > Jan Cheers, Alejandro
diff --git a/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c b/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c index 9216010b1c5d..870f7ecee0e5 100644 --- a/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c +++ b/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c @@ -654,6 +654,137 @@ static void test_is_compatible_failure(void) } } +static void test_topo_from_parts(void) +{ + static const struct test { + unsigned int threads_per_core; + unsigned int cores_per_pkg; + struct cpu_policy policy; + } tests[] = { + { + .threads_per_core = 3, .cores_per_pkg = 1, + .policy = { + .x86_vendor = X86_VENDOR_AMD, + .topo.subleaf = { + { .nr_logical = 3, .level = 0, .type = 1, .id_shift = 2, }, + { .nr_logical = 1, .level = 1, .type = 2, .id_shift = 2, }, + }, + }, + }, + { + .threads_per_core = 1, .cores_per_pkg = 3, + .policy = { + .x86_vendor = X86_VENDOR_AMD, + .topo.subleaf = { + { .nr_logical = 1, .level = 0, .type = 1, .id_shift = 0, }, + { .nr_logical = 3, .level = 1, .type = 2, .id_shift = 2, }, + }, + }, + }, + { + .threads_per_core = 7, .cores_per_pkg = 5, + .policy = { + .x86_vendor = X86_VENDOR_AMD, + .topo.subleaf = { + { .nr_logical = 7, .level = 0, .type = 1, .id_shift = 3, }, + { .nr_logical = 5, .level = 1, .type = 2, .id_shift = 6, }, + }, + }, + }, + { + .threads_per_core = 2, .cores_per_pkg = 128, + .policy = { + .x86_vendor = X86_VENDOR_AMD, + .topo.subleaf = { + { .nr_logical = 2, .level = 0, .type = 1, .id_shift = 1, }, + { .nr_logical = 128, .level = 1, .type = 2, + .id_shift = 8, }, + }, + }, + }, + { + .threads_per_core = 3, .cores_per_pkg = 1, + .policy = { + .x86_vendor = X86_VENDOR_INTEL, + .topo.subleaf = { + { .nr_logical = 3, .level = 0, .type = 1, .id_shift = 2, }, + { .nr_logical = 3, .level = 1, .type = 2, .id_shift = 2, }, + }, + }, + }, + { + .threads_per_core = 1, .cores_per_pkg = 3, + .policy = { + .x86_vendor = X86_VENDOR_INTEL, + .topo.subleaf = { + { .nr_logical = 1, .level = 0, .type = 1, .id_shift = 0, }, + { .nr_logical = 3, .level = 1, .type = 2, .id_shift = 2, }, + }, + }, + }, + { + .threads_per_core = 7, .cores_per_pkg = 5, + .policy = { + .x86_vendor = X86_VENDOR_INTEL, + .topo.subleaf = { + { .nr_logical = 7, .level = 0, .type = 1, .id_shift = 3, }, + { .nr_logical = 35, .level = 1, .type = 2, .id_shift = 6, }, + }, + }, + }, + { + .threads_per_core = 2, .cores_per_pkg = 128, + .policy = { + .x86_vendor = X86_VENDOR_INTEL, + .topo.subleaf = { + { .nr_logical = 2, .level = 0, .type = 1, .id_shift = 1, }, + { .nr_logical = 256, .level = 1, .type = 2, + .id_shift = 8, }, + }, + }, + }, + }; + + printf("Testing topology synthesis from parts:\n"); + + for ( size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); ++i ) + { + const struct test *t = &tests[i]; + struct cpu_policy actual = { .x86_vendor = t->policy.x86_vendor }; + int rc = x86_topo_from_parts(&actual, t->threads_per_core, + t->cores_per_pkg); + + if ( rc || memcmp(&actual.topo, &t->policy.topo, sizeof(actual.topo)) ) + { +#define TOPO(n, f) t->policy.topo.subleaf[(n)].f, actual.topo.subleaf[(n)].f + fail("FAIL[%d] - '%s %u t/c, %u c/p'\n", + rc, + x86_cpuid_vendor_to_str(t->policy.x86_vendor), + t->threads_per_core, t->cores_per_pkg); + printf(" subleaf=%u expected_n=%u actual_n=%u\n" + " expected_lvl=%u actual_lvl=%u\n" + " expected_type=%u actual_type=%u\n" + " expected_shift=%u actual_shift=%u\n", + 0, + TOPO(0, nr_logical), + TOPO(0, level), + TOPO(0, type), + TOPO(0, id_shift)); + + printf(" subleaf=%u expected_n=%u actual_n=%u\n" + " expected_lvl=%u actual_lvl=%u\n" + " expected_type=%u actual_type=%u\n" + " expected_shift=%u actual_shift=%u\n", + 1, + TOPO(1, nr_logical), + TOPO(1, level), + TOPO(1, type), + TOPO(1, id_shift)); +#undef TOPO + } + } +} + int main(int argc, char **argv) { printf("CPU Policy unit tests\n"); @@ -671,6 +802,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) test_is_compatible_success(); test_is_compatible_failure(); + test_topo_from_parts(); + if ( nr_failures ) printf("Done: %u failures\n", nr_failures); else diff --git a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h index f43e1a3b21e9..116b305a1d7f 100644 --- a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h @@ -542,6 +542,22 @@ int x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible(const struct cpu_policy *host, const struct cpu_policy *guest, struct cpu_policy_errors *err); +/** + * Synthesise topology information in `p` given high-level constraints + * + * Topology is given in various fields accross several leaves, some of + * which are vendor-specific. This function uses the policy itself to + * derive such leaves from threads/core and cores/package. + * + * @param p CPU policy of the domain. + * @param threads_per_core threads/core. Doesn't need to be a power of 2. + * @param cores_per_package cores/package. Doesn't need to be a power of 2. + * @return 0 on success; -errno on failure + */ +int x86_topo_from_parts(struct cpu_policy *p, + unsigned int threads_per_core, + unsigned int cores_per_pkg); + #endif /* !XEN_LIB_X86_POLICIES_H */ /* diff --git a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c index 63bc96451d2c..16b09a427841 100644 --- a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c +++ b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c @@ -2,6 +2,94 @@ #include <xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h> +static unsigned int order(unsigned int n) +{ + ASSERT(n); /* clz(0) is UB */ + + return 8 * sizeof(n) - __builtin_clz(n); +} + +int x86_topo_from_parts(struct cpu_policy *p, + unsigned int threads_per_core, + unsigned int cores_per_pkg) +{ + unsigned int threads_per_pkg = threads_per_core * cores_per_pkg; + unsigned int apic_id_size; + + if ( !p || !threads_per_core || !cores_per_pkg ) + return -EINVAL; + + p->basic.max_leaf = MAX(0xb, p->basic.max_leaf); + + memset(p->topo.raw, 0, sizeof(p->topo.raw)); + + /* thread level */ + p->topo.subleaf[0].nr_logical = threads_per_core; + p->topo.subleaf[0].id_shift = 0; + p->topo.subleaf[0].level = 0; + p->topo.subleaf[0].type = 1; + if ( threads_per_core > 1 ) + p->topo.subleaf[0].id_shift = order(threads_per_core - 1); + + /* core level */ + p->topo.subleaf[1].nr_logical = cores_per_pkg; + if ( p->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL ) + p->topo.subleaf[1].nr_logical = threads_per_pkg; + p->topo.subleaf[1].id_shift = p->topo.subleaf[0].id_shift; + p->topo.subleaf[1].level = 1; + p->topo.subleaf[1].type = 2; + if ( cores_per_pkg > 1 ) + p->topo.subleaf[1].id_shift += order(cores_per_pkg - 1); + + apic_id_size = p->topo.subleaf[1].id_shift; + + /* + * Contrary to what the name might seem to imply. HTT is an enabler for + * SMP and there's no harm in setting it even with a single vCPU. + */ + p->basic.htt = true; + p->basic.lppp = MIN(0xff, threads_per_pkg); + + switch ( p->x86_vendor ) + { + case X86_VENDOR_INTEL: { + struct cpuid_cache_leaf *sl = p->cache.subleaf; + + for ( size_t i = 0; sl->type && + i < ARRAY_SIZE(p->cache.raw); i++, sl++ ) + { + sl->cores_per_package = cores_per_pkg - 1; + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_core - 1; + if ( sl->type == 3 /* unified cache */ ) + sl->threads_per_cache = threads_per_pkg - 1; + } + break; + } + + case X86_VENDOR_AMD: + case X86_VENDOR_HYGON: + /* Expose p->basic.lppp */ + p->extd.cmp_legacy = true; + + /* Clip NC to the maximum value it can hold */ + p->extd.nc = MIN(0xff, threads_per_pkg - 1); + + /* TODO: Expose leaf e1E */ + p->extd.topoext = false; + + /* + * Clip APIC ID to 8 bits, as that's what high core-count machines do. + * + * That's what AMD EPYC 9654 does with >256 CPUs. + */ + p->extd.apic_id_size = MIN(8, apic_id_size); + + break; + } + + return 0; +} + int x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible(const struct cpu_policy *host, const struct cpu_policy *guest, struct cpu_policy_errors *err) diff --git a/xen/lib/x86/private.h b/xen/lib/x86/private.h index 60bb82a400b7..2ec9dbee33c2 100644 --- a/xen/lib/x86/private.h +++ b/xen/lib/x86/private.h @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ #ifdef __XEN__ #include <xen/bitops.h> +#include <xen/bug.h> #include <xen/guest_access.h> #include <xen/kernel.h> #include <xen/lib.h> @@ -17,6 +18,7 @@ #else +#include <assert.h> #include <errno.h> #include <inttypes.h> #include <stdbool.h> @@ -28,6 +30,8 @@ #include <xen-tools/common-macros.h> +#define ASSERT(x) assert(x) + static inline bool test_bit(unsigned int bit, const void *vaddr) { const char *addr = vaddr;
Add a helper to populate topology leaves in the cpu policy from threads/core and cores/package counts. It's unit-tested in test-cpu-policy.c, but it's not connected to the rest of the code yet. Adds the ASSERT() macro to xen/lib/x86/private.h, as it was missing. Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com> --- tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c | 133 +++++++++++++++++++++++ xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h | 16 +++ xen/lib/x86/policy.c | 88 +++++++++++++++ xen/lib/x86/private.h | 4 + 4 files changed, 241 insertions(+)