[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 09/21] libs/guest: allow fetching a specific CPUID leaf from a cpu policy
- To: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:47:20 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=n+qothyvfianGc+oCmDzsXnEORNndPWHYlCGJwKnB6I=; b=bJY97WrTUlG37036KM4rirDx8ExYMLVJS1cEYpd4SAm8TAJ04xI4hQyozuJGUldhn+SGsvpRtaG+DaoD6W+MfAcQXR50HeRb8Wz5d6zEGL1eWWuNbjyoOGhUJcltvfbCunofT9l8rLutWNv3HvSGPAFEsL+9/3enW5Ozf1Z3/Z5bYmy4MWXGtCpwoRn0IdlTL7/495y/TlgdJsF2F3VrUb/F8zI0Mro4ojl9l1Aig2ijkmLvW/dTEPRF7xZlVR6DN3P7aVHktdLaRjANY8GKHbp8MZzAprohbNl/FiKtE1mfpwYUv7Emcl8TbJlK38ItbpED75dypYIhtwvgyf8Aeg==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=hpQIobgfWkvCqnFmU/olJ2NRUfSGJxdEOgcbcPbAcKmY6kjpp6JzmhDIR2A/xWCyahghu+gZwG0dkviqNVmEe493XOKeLTG3FTQUkuICposiCg4d37GMzcPpB0QStDrZadm2XsEMqgAL7L1n5aeKIAKPPdV2r1OtvmyV4wRP5zf3byAlIpeJtfXHVHGXMwMt/mrRxhbhdXmWeI2aa8EThTkz2ovEC8tBI5zatkMjbKmwcdO670S6B8q99EiS4Nz+tIprdhcS6r8xRxALOSWHz5FQ5/1gtvJ0CEp3TLl3ikXEVlGaVqEjqdnbBw9J96eEW0yIZQTlcNzRooqxkZUheA==
- Authentication-results: esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=pass (signature verified) header.i=@citrix.onmicrosoft.com
- Cc: Ian Jackson <iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:47:33 +0000
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:YFw1iq1a9f/Zr+2Dvr1TRwqjBbByeYIsi2QD101hICF9WMqeis yogbAnxQb54QxhOk0ItNicNMC7LU/02oVy5eAqU4uKeCnDlC+WIJp57Y3kqgeQeBHW0uJGz6 9vf+xfJbTLfD1HpP336gW5DNosqePvmMvD6Nv29Ht1SBEvVqcI1WdEIz2WD1FsQ01+DYc5fa DsgvZvnSaqengcc62AZ0UtYu6rnbL2vaOjXDpDLyRi0RKJgC+j9frEHwPw5GZ4bxp/hYoHtU D+1zf0/LmnrpiAu3nh/l6W0rATsOGk9sFOH4ilk9EPLCrhh0KTaINtV6bqhkFMnMifrGsP1P H35ys7M982wHbWdGO4rF/W1w7s3C1G0Q6Y9XaoxUbG5fbfeQh/Me59vOtiA2fkwntlgfVV6o 4O+2qFvZtaACjhsU3GlqH1fiAvq26dm1ZnquIIk3lDOLFuEoN5nMgj2GtuPNM+EDnh6IYhed Mecf3h2A==
- Ironport-sdr: K5MO/ez6rLT1bri1vxUdscuqCOLn8iP0U2I/M5ELx5ImDbV59ijZD9lsRnAZy/MS2Z8KJiTsDY 5iBu/E37T7VY1CZxeJe5VgRA2cLklCsGffQ++vbUzpHuUQ/o3tpzV6aS4MCwd9cX27wQufvroE o5AfjmjYbT4kFsyEE/rmVjWTPEHysjuYQxnxcAUnlbTVTZ1bBpYKvtoq8jQVLxA3KHctJjdUku i6VMogeX9Ay6jtpz2MmgsqS2mdd0bAdNBhw4lzmEeda2D/LeQ+MNxRTY+AL+jfxi+9MZcdEgVI Grs=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 23/03/2021 09:58, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c b/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c
> index 48351f1c4c6..a1e1bf10d5c 100644
> --- a/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c
> +++ b/tools/libs/guest/xg_cpuid_x86.c
> @@ -883,3 +883,45 @@ int xc_cpu_policy_serialise(xc_interface *xch, const
> xc_cpu_policy_t p,
> errno = 0;
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +int xc_cpu_policy_get_cpuid(xc_interface *xch, const xc_cpu_policy_t policy,
> + uint32_t leaf, uint32_t subleaf,
> + xen_cpuid_leaf_t *out)
> +{
> + unsigned int nr_leaves, nr_msrs, i;
> + xen_cpuid_leaf_t *leaves;
> + int rc = xc_cpu_policy_get_size(xch, &nr_leaves, &nr_msrs);
> +
> + if ( rc )
> + {
> + PERROR("Failed to obtain policy info size");
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + leaves = calloc(nr_leaves, sizeof(*leaves));
> + if ( !leaves )
> + {
> + PERROR("Failed to allocate resources");
> + errno = ENOMEM;
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + rc = xc_cpu_policy_serialise(xch, policy, leaves, &nr_leaves, NULL, 0);
> + if ( rc )
> + goto out;
> +
> + for ( i = 0; i < nr_leaves; i++ )
> + if ( leaves[i].leaf == leaf && leaves[i].subleaf == subleaf )
> + {
> + *out = leaves[i];
> + goto out;
> + }
Please adapt find_leaf(), probably by dropping xc_xend_cpuid and passing
in leaf/subleaf parameters.
Serialised leaves are sorted and there are plenty of them, so a log
search is better.
How frequent is this call going to be for the same policy? With the
arrays embedded in a policy, they're still around, and serialise is an
expensive operation.
I wonder if it makes sense to try and keep both forms in sync, so we can
avoid redundant calls like this?
~Andrew
|