Implements the helper for mapping vcpu_id to x2apic_id given a valid
topology in a policy. The algo is written with the intention of
extending it to leaves 0x1f and extended 0x26 in the future.
Toolstack doesn't set leaf 0xb and the HVM default policy has it
cleared, so the leaf is not implemented. In that case, the new helper
just returns the legacy mapping.
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@cloud.com>
---
tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++
xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h | 11 ++++
xen/lib/x86/policy.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 155 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c b/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c
index 870f7ecee0e5..ae7fc46a47d2 100644
--- a/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c
+++ b/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c
@@ -785,6 +785,73 @@ static void test_topo_from_parts(void)
}
}
+static void test_x2apic_id_from_vcpu_id_success(void)
+{
+ static const struct test {
+ unsigned int vcpu_id;
+ unsigned int threads_per_core;
+ unsigned int cores_per_pkg;
+ uint32_t x2apic_id;
+ uint8_t x86_vendor;
+ } tests[] = {
+ {
+ .vcpu_id = 3, .threads_per_core = 3, .cores_per_pkg = 8,
+ .x2apic_id = 1 << 2,
+ },
+ {
+ .vcpu_id = 6, .threads_per_core = 3, .cores_per_pkg = 8,
+ .x2apic_id = 2 << 2,
+ },
+ {
+ .vcpu_id = 24, .threads_per_core = 3, .cores_per_pkg = 8,
+ .x2apic_id = 1 << 5,
+ },
+ {
+ .vcpu_id = 35, .threads_per_core = 3, .cores_per_pkg = 8,
+ .x2apic_id = (35 % 3) | (((35 / 3) % 8) << 2) | ((35 / 24) << 5),
+ },
+ {
+ .vcpu_id = 96, .threads_per_core = 7, .cores_per_pkg = 3,
+ .x2apic_id = (96 % 7) | (((96 / 7) % 3) << 3) | ((96 / 21) << 5),
+ },
+ };
+
+ const uint8_t vendors[] = {
+ X86_VENDOR_INTEL,
+ X86_VENDOR_AMD,
+ X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR,
+ X86_VENDOR_SHANGHAI,
+ X86_VENDOR_HYGON,
+ };
+
+ printf("Testing x2apic id from vcpu id success:\n");
+
+ /* Perform the test run on every vendor we know about */
+ for ( size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vendors); ++i )
+ {
+ for ( size_t j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); ++j )
+ {
+ struct cpu_policy policy = { .x86_vendor = vendors[i] };
+ const struct test *t = &tests[j];
+ uint32_t x2apic_id;
+ int rc = x86_topo_from_parts(&policy, t->threads_per_core,
+ t->cores_per_pkg);
+
+ if ( rc ) {
+ fail("FAIL[%d] - 'x86_topo_from_parts() failed", rc);
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ x2apic_id = x86_x2apic_id_from_vcpu_id(&policy, t->vcpu_id);
+ if ( x2apic_id != t->x2apic_id )
+ fail("FAIL - '%s cpu%u %u t/c %u c/p'. bad x2apic_id: expected=%u actual=%u\n",
+ x86_cpuid_vendor_to_str(policy.x86_vendor),
+ t->vcpu_id, t->threads_per_core, t->cores_per_pkg,
+ t->x2apic_id, x2apic_id);
+ }
+ }
+}
+
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("CPU Policy unit tests\n");
@@ -803,6 +870,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
test_is_compatible_failure();
test_topo_from_parts();
+ test_x2apic_id_from_vcpu_id_success();
if ( nr_failures )
printf("Done: %u failures\n", nr_failures);
diff --git a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h
index 116b305a1d7f..6fe19490d290 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h
@@ -542,6 +542,17 @@ int x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible(const struct cpu_policy *host,
const struct cpu_policy *guest,
struct cpu_policy_errors *err);
+/**
+ * Calculates the x2APIC ID of a vCPU given a CPU policy
+ *
+ * If the policy lacks leaf 0xb falls back to legacy mapping of apic_id=cpu*2
+ *
+ * @param p CPU policy of the domain.
+ * @param id vCPU ID of the vCPU.
+ * @returns x2APIC ID of the vCPU.
+ */
+uint32_t x86_x2apic_id_from_vcpu_id(const struct cpu_policy *p, uint32_t id);
+
/**
* Synthesise topology information in `p` given high-level constraints
*
diff --git a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c
index 16b09a427841..6dd9a2900ad7 100644
--- a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c
+++ b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c
@@ -2,6 +2,82 @@
#include <xen/lib/x86/cpu-policy.h>
+static uint32_t parts_per_higher_scoped_level(const struct cpu_policy *p,
+ size_t lvl)
+{
+ /*
+ * `nr_logical` reported by Intel is the number of THREADS contained in
+ * the next topological scope. For example, assuming a system with 2
+ * threads/core and 3 cores/module in a fully symmetric topology,
+ * `nr_logical` at the core level will report 6. Because it's reporting
+ * the number of threads in a module.
+ *
+ * On AMD/Hygon, nr_logical is already normalized by the higher scoped
+ * level (cores/complex, etc) so we can return it as-is.
+ */
+ if ( p->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL || !lvl )
+ return p->topo.subleaf[lvl].nr_logical;
+
+ return p->topo.subleaf[lvl].nr_logical /
+ p->topo.subleaf[lvl - 1].nr_logical;
+}
+
+uint32_t x86_x2apic_id_from_vcpu_id(const struct cpu_policy *p, uint32_t id)
+{
+ uint32_t shift = 0, x2apic_id = 0;
+
+ /* In the absence of topology leaves, fallback to traditional mapping */
+ if ( !p->topo.subleaf[0].type )
+ return id * 2;
+
+ /*
+ * `id` means different things at different points of the algo
+ *
+ * At lvl=0: global thread_id (same as vcpu_id)
+ * At lvl=1: global core_id
+ * At lvl=2: global socket_id (actually complex_id in AMD, module_id
+ * in Intel, but the name is inconsequential)
+ *
+ * +--+
+ * ____ |#0| ______ <= 1 socket
+ * / +--+ \+--+
+ * __#0__ __|#1|__ <= 2 cores/socket
+ * / | \ +--+/ +-|+ \
+ * #0 #1 #2 |#3| #4 #5 <= 3 threads/core
+ * +--+
+ *
+ * ... and so on. Global in this context means that it's a unique
+ * identifier for the whole topology, and not relative to the level
+ * it's in. For example, in the diagram shown above, we're looking at
+ * thread #3 in the global sense, though it's #0 within its core.
+ *
+ * Note that dividing a global thread_id by the number of threads per
+ * core returns the global core id that contains it. e.g: 0, 1 or 2
+ * divided by 3 returns core_id=0. 3, 4 or 5 divided by 3 returns core
+ * 1, and so on. An analogous argument holds for higher levels. This is
+ * the property we exploit to derive x2apic_id from vcpu_id.
+ *
+ * NOTE: `topo` is currently derived from leaf 0xb, which is bound to two
+ * levels, but once we track leaves 0x1f (or extended 0x26) there will be a
+ * few more. The algorithm is written to cope with that case.
+ */
+ for ( uint32_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(p->topo.raw); i++ )
+ {
+ uint32_t nr_parts;
+
+ if ( !p->topo.subleaf[i].type )
+ /* sentinel subleaf */
+ break;
+
+ nr_parts = parts_per_higher_scoped_level(p, i);
+ x2apic_id |= (id % nr_parts) << shift;
+ id /= nr_parts;
+ shift = p->topo.subleaf[i].id_shift;
+ }
+
+ return (id << shift) | x2apic_id;
+}
+
static unsigned int order(unsigned int n)
{
ASSERT(n); /* clz(0) is UB */
--
2.46.0On 01.10.2024 14:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > Implements the helper for mapping vcpu_id to x2apic_id given a valid > topology in a policy. The algo is written with the intention of > extending it to leaves 0x1f and extended 0x26 in the future. > > Toolstack doesn't set leaf 0xb and the HVM default policy has it > cleared, so the leaf is not implemented. In that case, the new helper > just returns the legacy mapping. Is the first sentence of this latter paragraph missing an "If" or "When" at the beginning? As written I'm afraid I can't really make sense of it. Jan
On Wed Oct 9, 2024 at 3:53 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 01.10.2024 14:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > > Implements the helper for mapping vcpu_id to x2apic_id given a valid > > topology in a policy. The algo is written with the intention of > > extending it to leaves 0x1f and extended 0x26 in the future. > > > > Toolstack doesn't set leaf 0xb and the HVM default policy has it > > cleared, so the leaf is not implemented. In that case, the new helper > > just returns the legacy mapping. > > Is the first sentence of this latter paragraph missing an "If" or "When" > at the beginning? As written I'm afraid I can't really make sense of it. > > Jan It's a statement of current affairs. Could be rewritten as... The helper returns the legacy mapping when leaf 0xb is not implemented (as is the case at the moment). Does that look better? Cheers, Alejandro
On 09.10.2024 19:29, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > On Wed Oct 9, 2024 at 3:53 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 01.10.2024 14:38, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: >>> Implements the helper for mapping vcpu_id to x2apic_id given a valid >>> topology in a policy. The algo is written with the intention of >>> extending it to leaves 0x1f and extended 0x26 in the future. >>> >>> Toolstack doesn't set leaf 0xb and the HVM default policy has it >>> cleared, so the leaf is not implemented. In that case, the new helper >>> just returns the legacy mapping. >> >> Is the first sentence of this latter paragraph missing an "If" or "When" >> at the beginning? As written I'm afraid I can't really make sense of it. > > It's a statement of current affairs. Could be rewritten as... > > The helper returns the legacy mapping when leaf 0xb is not implemented (as > is the case at the moment). > > Does that look better? Yes. Jan
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.