Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 07/14] target/arm/cpu64: max cpu: Introduce sve<vl-bits> properties

[Andrew Jones]

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 01:49:11PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:05:26PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 05:34:15PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > Introduce cpu properties to give fine control over SVE vector lengths.
> > > We introduce a property for each valid length up to the current
> > > maximum supported, which is 2048-bits. The properties are named, e.g.
> > > sve128, sve256, sve512, ..., where the number is the number of bits.
> > > 
> > > It's now possible to do something like -cpu max,sve-max-vq=4,sve384=off
> > > to provide a guest vector lengths 128, 256, and 512 bits. The resulting
> > > set must conform to the architectural constraint of having all power-of-2
> > > lengths smaller than the maximum length present. It's also possible to
> > > only provide sve<vl-bits> properties, e.g. -cpu max,sve512=on. That
> > > example provides the machine with 128, 256, and 512 bit vector lengths.
> > > It doesn't hurt to explicitly ask for all expected vector lengths,
> > > which is what, for example, libvirt should do.
> > > 
> > > Note1, it is not possible to use sve<vl-bits> properties before
> > > sve-max-vq, e.g. -cpu max,sve384=off,sve-max-vq=4, as supporting
> > > that overly complicates the user input validation.
> > > 
> > > Note2, while one might expect -cpu max,sve-max-vq=4,sve512=on to be the
> > > same as -cpu max,sve512=on, they are not. The former enables all vector
> > > lengths 512 bits and smaller, while the latter only sets the 512-bit
> > > length and its smaller power-of-2 lengths. It's probably best not to use
> > > sve-max-vq with sve<vl-bits> properties, but it can't be completely
> > > forbidden as we want qmp_query_cpu_model_expansion to work with guests
> > > launched with e.g. -cpu max,sve-max-vq=8 on their command line.
> > 
> > Supporting both options together in a non-idempotent way seems to
> > complicate things.
> > 
> > Would it be simpler to allow sve-max-vq only when there are no sve<bits>
> > options?
> 
> Not really. Since we can't simply remove sve-max-vq from the 'max' cpu
> type, then we'd still need conditions to check when we can use it. The
> restriction that it has to come first reduces the complexity
> substantially, and I think restricting to not being allowed
> at all, when sve<vl-bits> are used, would only give us a net check
> reduction of one or two.
> 
> > 
> > Alternatively, the two options would be defined so that their meanings
> > are independent of parse order.
> > 
> > So, way sve-max-vq=<max> means that:
> > 
> >  * all VQs up to max for which there is no corresponding sve<bits>=off,
> >    are enabled; and
> > 
> >  * VQ max is enabled; and
> > 
> >  * all VQs exceeding max are disabled.
> > 
> > While sve<bits>=(on|off) means
> > 
> >  * the VQ coresponding to <bits> is enabled (for on) or disabled (for
> >    off).
> >  
> > After parsing all the options, you check that the sve-max-vq and
> > sve<bits> optinos are consistent.  If you disallow duplicate sve-max-vq
> > or sve<bits> options, then there is no possibility of ambiguity and the
> > order or options doesn't matter.
> 
> I don't want to put any final checks at the end of parsing all options,
> because that won't work with the QMP query.

Actually, I think I can allow sve-max-vq to come after sve<vl-bits>
without adding much code, and without requiring a final check. I
could try that if you'd like, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Also, I
feel like I tried this once already and rejected it for some reason,
but atm I can't remember why.

> 
> > 
> > (There may be constraints on the way qemu options parsing works that
> > make this hard, though...)
> 
> I can't think of any issue with the parsing, but the QMP query only using
> the property get accessors, without any finalizing, does put constraints
> on what we can do.
> 
> > 
> > Having sve-max-vq in 128-bit units while sve<bits> are named in terms of
> > bit counts also feels a bit odd now.
> 
> sve-max-vq already exists, so it'd have to be deprecated if we don't want
> it anymore. And I think sve<vl-bits> is the right naming to go with for
> that. Of course using sve-max-vq is completely optional. If you don't want
> it for backward compatible reasons, or as a shorthand to restrict the
> lengths, then you can just use the sve<vl-bits> properties. Indeed, with
> KVM, if you use the 'host' cpu type (the default for use with KVM), then
> you won't even have the sve-max-vq property. As 'host' never had it, I
> didn't have to keep it, nor adopt it. And of course I didn't want to
> adopt it.
> 
> Thanks,
> drew
>