qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
To: Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@gmail.com>
Cc: "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>,
	"Eduardo Habkost" <eduardo@habkost.net>,
	"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com>,
	"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] apic: add support for x2APIC mode
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:28:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230330102850.33882a75@imammedo.users.ipa.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <60228a86-633e-3cf6-b0d9-890b032d44f3@gmail.com>

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:30:44 +0700
Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/29/23 21:53, Bui Quang Minh wrote:
> > On 3/28/23 22:58, Bui Quang Minh wrote:  
> >> On 3/27/23 23:49, David Woodhouse wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 23:35 +0700, Bui Quang Minh wrote:  
> >>>> On 3/27/23 23:22, David Woodhouse wrote:  
> >>>>> On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 22:45 +0700, Bui Quang Minh wrote:  
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>> Maybe I'm misreading the patch, but to me it looks that
> >>>>>>> if (dest == 0xff) apic_get_broadcast_bitmask() bit applies even in
> >>>>>>> x2apic mode? So delivering to the APIC with physical ID 255 will be
> >>>>>>> misinterpreted as a broadcast?  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In case dest == 0xff the second argument to 
> >>>>>> apic_get_broadcast_bitmask
> >>>>>> is set to false which means this is xAPIC broadcast  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, but it *isn't* xAPIC broadcast. It's X2APIC unicast to APIC#255.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you want (although you don't have 'dev') something like this:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static void apic_get_delivery_bitmask(uint32_t *deliver_bitmask,
> >>>>>                                         uint32_t dest, uint8_t 
> >>>>> dest_mode)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>>       APICCommonState *apic_iter;
> >>>>>       int i;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       memset(deliver_bitmask, 0x00, max_apic_words * 
> >>>>> sizeof(uint32_t));
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       /* x2APIC broadcast id for both physical and logical 
> >>>>> (cluster) mode */
> >>>>>       if (dest == 0xffffffff) {
> >>>>>           apic_get_broadcast_bitmask(deliver_bitmask, true);
> >>>>>           return;
> >>>>>       }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       if (dest_mode == 0) {
> >>>>>           apic_find_dest(deliver_bitmask, dest);
> >>>>>           /* Broadcast to xAPIC mode apics */
> >>>>> -        if (dest == 0xff) {
> >>>>> +        if (dest == 0xff && is_x2apic_mode(dev)) {
> >>>>>               apic_get_broadcast_bitmask(deliver_bitmask, false);
> >>>>>           }
> >>>>>       } else {
> >>>>>  
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm, the unicast case is handled in apic_find_dest function, the logic
> >>>> inside the if (dest == 0xff) is for handling the broadcast case only.
> >>>> This is because when dest == 0xff, it can be both a x2APIC unicast and
> >>>> xAPIC broadcast in case we have some CPUs that are in xAPIC and others
> >>>> are in x2APIC.  
> >>>
> >>> Ah! Yes, I see it now.
> >>>
> >>> Shouldn't apic_get_broadcast_bitmask(… true) add *all* APICs to the
> >>> mask, regardless of their mode? An APIC which is still in xAPIC mode
> >>> will only look at the low 8 bits and see 0xFF which it also interprets
> >>> as broadcast? Or is that not how real hardware behaves?  
> >>
> >> This is interesting. Your point looks reasonable to me but I don't 
> >> know how to verify it, I'm trying to write kernel module to test it 
> >> but there are just too many things running on Linux that uses 
> >> interrupt so the system hangs.
> >>
> >> This raises another question: when dest == 0x102 in IPI, does the 
> >> xAPIC mode CPU with APIC ID 0x2 accept the IPI? I can't see this 
> >> stated clearly in the Intel SDM.  
> > 
> > I do some more testing on my hardware, your point is correct when dest 
> > == 0xffffffff, the interrupt is delivered to all APICs regardless of 
> > their mode.  
> 
> To be precisely, it only broadcasts to CPUs in xAPIC mode if the IPI 
> destination mode is physical. In case the destination mode is logical, 
> flat model/cluster model rule applies to determine if the xAPIC CPUs 
> accept the IPI. Wow, this is so complicated :)

It would be nice if you could update apic kvm unit test with your
findings if it doesn't test those variants yet.

> 
> 
> > And when dest == 0x102 in IPI, xAPIC mode CPU with APIC ID 
> > 0x2 also accepts that IPI.  
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-30  8:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-26  5:20 [PATCH v2 0/5] Support x2APIC mode with TCG accelerator Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-26  5:20 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] i386/tcg: implement x2APIC registers MSR access Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-27 16:56   ` David Woodhouse
2023-03-28 16:33     ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-26  5:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] apic: add support for x2APIC mode Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-27 11:04   ` David Woodhouse
2023-03-27 15:33     ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-27 15:37       ` David Woodhouse
2023-03-27 15:45         ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-27 16:22           ` David Woodhouse
2023-03-27 16:35             ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-27 16:49               ` David Woodhouse
2023-03-28 15:58                 ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-29 14:53                   ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-29 15:30                     ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-30  8:28                       ` Igor Mammedov [this message]
2023-04-03 16:01                         ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-04-03 10:27                       ` David Woodhouse
2023-04-03 16:38                         ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-04-09 14:31                           ` Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-26  5:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] apic, i386/tcg: add x2apic transitions Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-26  5:20 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] intel_iommu: allow Extended Interrupt Mode when using userspace APIC Bui Quang Minh
2023-03-26  5:20 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] amd_iommu: report x2APIC support to the operating system Bui Quang Minh

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20230330102850.33882a75@imammedo.users.ipa.redhat.com \
    --to=imammedo@redhat.com \
    --cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
    --cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
    --cc=minhquangbui99@gmail.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=richard.henderson@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).