From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shannon.zhao@linaro.org (Shannon Zhao) Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:03:20 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v8 20/20] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device In-Reply-To: <20160111115225.GC3924@hawk.localdomain> References: <1450771695-11948-1-git-send-email-zhaoshenglong@huawei.com> <1450771695-11948-21-git-send-email-zhaoshenglong@huawei.com> <568E7AF1.9040103@huawei.com> <20160107203647.GJ6199@hawk.localdomain> <20160109122956.GA30867@cbox> <20160109150339.10576e81@arm.com> <56936B91.301@huawei.com> <56936EFA.1000404@arm.com> <20160111115225.GC3924@hawk.localdomain> Message-ID: <56939A08.50603@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2016/1/11 19:52, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 08:59:38AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >On 11/01/16 08:45, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >On 2016/1/9 23:03, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>>> > >>On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:29:56 +0100 >>>> > >>Christoffer Dall wrote: >>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>>>On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 09:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 02:56:15PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On 7 January 2016 at 14:49, Shannon Zhao wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+Groups: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ Attributes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes one value: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ bits: | 63 .... 32 | 31 .... 0 | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ values: | reserved | vcpu_index | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ A value describing the PMU overflow interrupt number for the specified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one VM the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. As a PPI, the interrupt number is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+ same for all vcpus, while as a SPI it must be different for each vcpu. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>I see we're using vcpu_index rather than MPIDR affinity value >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>for specifying which CPU we're configuring. Is this in line with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>our planned API for GICv3 configuration? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Here vcpu_index is used to indexing the vCPU, no special use. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Yes, but you can identify the CPU by index, or by its MPIDR. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>We had a discussion about which was the best way for doing >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>the VGIC API, and I can't remember which way round we ended up >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>going for. Whichever we chose, we should do the same thing here. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>I think we should start up a new discussion on this. My understanding, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>after a chat with Igor, who was involved in the untangling of vcpu-id and >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>apic-id for x86, is that using vcpu-id is preferred, unless of course >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>the device expects an apic-id/mpidr, in which case there's no reason to >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>translate it on both sides. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>I'm fairly strongly convinced that we should use the full 32-bit >>>>>> > >>>>compressed MPIDR for everything ARM related going forward, as this will >>>>>> > >>>>cover any case required and leverages and architecturally defined way of >>>>>> > >>>>uniquely identifying a (v)CPU. >>>> > >>+1. >>>> > >> >>>> > >>vcpu_ids, indexes or any other constructs are just a bunch >>>> > >>of KVM-specific definitions that do not describe the VM from an >>>> > >>architecture PoV. In contrast, the MPIDR is guaranteed to be unique >>>> > >>stable, and identifies a given (v)CPU. >>>> > >> >>>> > >>As for the PMU: either 1) we instantiate it together with the CPU >>>> > >>(with a new capability/feature), >>> > >So spare some bits(e.g. 10 bits) of the features array to pass the PMU >>> > >irq number or add KVM_SET/GET_DEVICE_ATTR for vcpu ioctl? >> > >> >Using the device attributes seems more suitable, but I don't know if >> >using GET/SET_DEVICE_ATTR without the actual creation of a device is >> >acceptable... > There's precedent set by s390 to take only the set/get/has api into a > new context, commit f206165620. Thanks Andrew. So adding the set/get/has api for only ARM VCPU is acceptable? If so, I'll rewrite my patch. Thanks, -- Shannon