[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Any interest in a QEMU emulation BoF at KVM Forum?
From: |
Edgar E. Iglesias |
Subject: |
Re: Any interest in a QEMU emulation BoF at KVM Forum? |
Date: |
Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:14:26 +0200 |
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Given our slowly growing range of TCG emulations and the evident
> interest in keeping up with modern processor architectures is it worth
> having an emulation focused BoF at the up-coming KVM Forum?
Hi Alex,
Yes, I'd be interested in all topics you mention.
Best regards,
Edgar
>
> Some potential topics for discussion I could think of might include:
>
> * Progress towards heterogeneous vCPU emulation
>
> We've been making slow progress in removing assumptions from the
> various front-ends about their global nature and adding accel:TCG
> abstractions and support for the translator loop. We can already have
> CPUs from the same architecture family in a model. What else do we need
> to do so we can have those funky ARM+RiscV+Tricore heterogeneous
> models? Is it library or something else?
>
> * External Device Models
>
> I know this is a contentious topic given the potential for GPL
> end-runs. However there are also good arguments for enabling the
> testing of open source designs without having forcing the
> implementation of a separate C model to test software. For example if
> we hypothetically modelled a Pi Pico would it make sense to model the
> PIO in C if we could just compile the Verilog for it into a SystemC
> model? Would a plethora of closed device models be the inevitable
> consequence of such an approach? Would it matter if we just
> concentrated on supporting useful open source solutions?
>
> * Dynamic Machine Models
>
> While we try and avoid modelling bespoke virtual HW in QEMU
> (virt/goldfish not withstanding ;-) there is obviously a desire in the
> EDA space to allow such experimentation. Is this something we can
> provide so aspiring HW engineers can experiment with system
> architectures without having to form QEMU and learn QOM. There have
> been suggestions about consuming device trees or maybe translating to
> QMP calls and adding support for wiring devices together. Given the
> number of forks that exist is this something that could be better
> supported upstream without degenerating into messy hacks?
>
> * A sense of time
>
> Currently we have the fairly limited support for -icount in QEMU. At
> the same time we have no desire to start expanding frontends with
> the details cost models required for a more realistic sense of time to
> be presented. One suggestion is to expand the TCG plugin interface to
> allow for the plugin to control time allowing as much or little logic
> to be pushed there as we like and freeing up frontends from ever having
> to consider it.
>
> Are any of these topics of interest? Are there any other emulation
> topics people would like to discuss?
>
> --
> Alex Bennée