[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <384bc07d-6105-d380-cd44-4518870c15f1@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 23:09:42 +0800
From: "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jing2.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: x86: Expose AVX512_BF16 feature to guest
Hi Paolo,
On 6/20/2019 8:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 20/06/19 13:21, Jing Liu wrote:
>> + for (i = 1; i <= times; i++) {
>> + if (*nent >= maxnent)
>> + goto out;
>> + do_cpuid_1_ent(&entry[i], function, i);
>> + entry[i].eax &= F(AVX512_BF16);
>> + entry[i].ebx = 0;
>> + entry[i].ecx = 0;
>> + entry[i].edx = 0;
>> + entry[i].flags |= KVM_CPUID_FLAG_SIGNIFCANT_INDEX;
>> + ++*nent;
>
> This woud be wrong for i > 1, so instead make this
>
> if (entry->eax >= 1)
>
I am confused about the @index parameter. @index seems not used for
every case except 0x07. Since the caller function only has @index=0, so
all other cases except 0x07 put cpuid info from subleaf=0 to max subleaf.
What do you think about @index in current function? Does it mean, we
need put cpuid from index to max subleaf to @entry[i]? If so, the logic
seems as follows,
if (index == 0) {
// Put subleaf 0 into @entry
// Put subleaf 1 into @entry[1]
} else if (index < entry->eax) {
// Put subleaf 1 into @entry
} else {
// Put all zero into @entry
}
But this seems not identical with other cases, for current caller
function. Or we can simply ignore @index in 0x07 and just put all possible
subleaf info back?
> and define F(AVX512_BF16) as a new constant kvm_cpuid_7_1_eax_features.
>
Got it.
Thanks,
Jing
> Paolo
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists