[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 09/17] ppc/xive: Extend XiveTCTX with a XiveR
From: |
David Gibson |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 09/17] ppc/xive: Extend XiveTCTX with a XiveRouter pointer |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:11:31 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) |
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:06:27AM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 28/07/2019 09:46, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 01:54:12PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >> This is to perform lookups in the NVT table when a vCPU is dispatched
> >> and possibily resend interrupts.
> >>
> >> Future XIVE chip will use a different class for the model of the
> >> interrupt controller and we might need to change the type of
> >> 'XiveRouter *' to 'Object *'
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <address@hidden>
> >
> > Hrm. This still bothers me.
>
> Your feeling is right. There should be a good reason to link two objects
> together as it can be an issue later on (such P10). It should not be an
> hidden parameter to function calls. this is more or less the case.
>
> See below for more explanation.
>
> > AIUI there can be multiple XiveRouters in the system, yes?
>
> yes and it works relatively well with 4 chips. I say relatively because
> the presenter model is taking a shortcut we should fix.
>
> > And at least theoretically can present irqs from multiple routers?
>
> Yes. the console being the most simple example. We only have one device
> per system on the LPC bus of chip 0.
>
> > In which case what's the rule for which one should be associated with
> > a specific.
> > I guess it's the one on the same chip, but that needs to be explained
> > up front, with some justification of why that's the relevant one.
>
> Yes. we try to minimize the traffic on the PowerBUS so generally CPU
> targets are on the same IC. The EAT on POWER10 should be on the same
> HW chip.
>
>
> I think we can address the proposed changes from another perspective,
> from the presenter one. this is cleaner and reflects better the HW design.
>
> The thread contexts are owned by the presenter. It can scan its list
> when doing CAM matching and when the thread context registers are being
> accessed by a CPU. Adding a XiveRouter parameter to all the TIMA
> operations seems like a better option and solves the problem.
>
>
> The thread context registers are modeled under the CPU object today
> because it was practical for sPAPR but on HW, these are SRAM entries,
> one for each HW thread of the chip. So may be, we should have introduced
> an other table under the XiveRouter to model the contexts but there
> was no real need for the XIVE POWER9 IC of the pseries machine. This
> design might be reaching its limits with PowerNV and POWER10.
>
>
> Looking at :
>
> [PATCH v2 15/17] ppc/pnv: Grab the XiveRouter object from XiveTCTX in
> pnv_xive_get_tctx()
>
> we see that the code adds an extra check on the THREAD_ENABLE registers
> and for that, its needs the IC to which belongs the thread context. This
> code is wrong. We should not be need to find a XiveRouter object from a
> XiveRouter handler.
>
> This is because the xive_presenter_match() routine does:
>
> CPU_FOREACH(cs) {
> XiveTCTX *tctx = xive_router_get_tctx(xrtr, cs);
>
> we should be, instead, looping on the different IC of the system
> looking for a match. Something else to fix. I think I will use the
> PIR to match the CPU of a chip.
>
>
> Looking at POWER10, XIVE internal structures have changed and we will
> need to introduce new IC models, one for PowerNV obviously but surely
> also one for pseries. A third one ... yes, sorry about that. If we go
> in that direction, it would be good to have a common XiveTCTX and not
> link it to a specific XiveRouter (P9 or P10). Another good reason not
> to use that link.
>
>
> So I will rework the end of that patchset. Thanks for having given me
> time to think more about it before merging. I did more experiments and
> the models are now more precise, specially with guest and multichip
> support.
Ok, good to hear. I will wait for the respin.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 03/17] ppc/xive: Implement TM_PULL_OS_CTX special command, (continued)
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 03/17] ppc/xive: Implement TM_PULL_OS_CTX special command, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 04/17] ppc/xive: Provide backlog support, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 05/17] ppc/xive: Provide escalation support, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 06/17] ppc/xive: Provide unconditional escalation support, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 07/17] ppc/xive: Provide silent escalation support, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 08/17] ppc/xive: Improve 'info pic' support, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 09/17] ppc/xive: Extend XiveTCTX with a XiveRouter pointer, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 10/17] ppc/xive: Introduce xive_tctx_ipb_update(), Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 11/17] ppc/xive: Synthesize interrupt from the saved IPB in the NVT, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 12/17] ppc/pnv: Remove pnv_xive_vst_size() routine, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 13/17] ppc/pnv: Dump the XIVE NVT table, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 15/17] ppc/pnv: Grab the XiveRouter object from XiveTCTX in pnv_xive_get_tctx(), Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 14/17] ppc/pnv: Skip empty slots of the XIVE NVT table, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 16/17] ppc/pnv: Introduce a pnv_xive_get_block_id() interface to XiveRouter, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 17/17] ppc/pnv: quiesce some XIVE errors, Cédric Le Goater, 2019/07/18
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 00/17] ppc/pnv: add XIVE support for KVM guests, no-reply, 2019/07/18