From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21246C54E41 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:33:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rfjKx-0003BU-G7; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:32:47 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rfjKt-0003BF-3j; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:32:43 -0500 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com ([185.176.79.56]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rfjKp-0000JK-MW; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:32:41 -0500 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TlxTg0hB2z6J9bM; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 00:27:51 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC0391408FE; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 00:32:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:32:33 +0000 Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 16:32:32 +0000 To: Ankit Agrawal CC: Markus Armbruster , Jason Gunthorpe , "alex.williamson@redhat.com" , "clg@redhat.com" , "shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com" , "peter.maydell@linaro.org" , "ani@anisinha.ca" , "berrange@redhat.com" , "eduardo@habkost.net" , "imammedo@redhat.com" , "mst@redhat.com" , "eblake@redhat.com" , "david@redhat.com" , "gshan@redhat.com" , Zhi Wang , Matt Ochs , "pbonzini@redhat.com" , Aniket Agashe , Neo Jia , Kirti Wankhede , "Tarun Gupta (SW-GPU)" , Vikram Sethi , "Andy Currid" , Dheeraj Nigam , Uday Dhoke , "qemu-arm@nongnu.org" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] qom: new object to associate device to numa node Message-ID: <20240229163232.0000478d@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20240223124223.800078-1-ankita@nvidia.com> <20240223124223.800078-2-ankita@nvidia.com> <8734td3uty.fsf@pond.sub.org> <20240228135504.00005d12@Huawei.com> <87bk80vaft.fsf@pond.sub.org> <20240229102230.00004277@Huawei.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.202.227.76] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100004.china.huawei.com (7.191.162.219) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.176.79.56; envelope-from=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; helo=frasgout.his.huawei.com X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-to: Jonathan Cameron From: Jonathan Cameron via Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:00:27 +0000 Ankit Agrawal wrote: > >> >>> Jonathan, you pointed out interface design issues in your review o= f v2.> =20 > >> >> Are you fully satisfied with the interface in v3? > >> >> > >> >> Yes. I'm fine with the interface in this version (though it's v7, s= o I'm lost > >> >> on v2 vs v3!) =20 > >> > > >> > Looks like I can't count to 7! > >> > > >> > With NUMA capitalized in the doc comment, QAPI schema > >> > Acked-by: Markus Armbruster > >> > > >> > Thanks! =20 > >> > >> Thanks! Will fix that in the next version. =20 > > > > The following is really me arguing with myself, so can probably be > > ignored, but maybe it will spark an idea from someone else! > > > > One trivial tweak that might make our life easier if anyone adds > > support in the future for the other device handle type might be to go > > with simply dev rather than pci-dev. > > > > There is a sticky corner though if a device is a PCI device > > and in ACPI DSDT so maybe we are better off adding acpi-dev > > to take either pci-dev or acpi-dev? =20 >=20 > That use case does complicate the situation. Do you of any such > use case for generic initiator? In physical systems yes - in QEMU not yet, though it's a quirk of the available ids to get to the ACPI devices (which oddly are PCI devices :() >=20 > As for your suggestion of using acpi-dev as the arg to take both > pci-dev and acpi-dev.. Would that mean sending a pure pci device > (not the corner case you mentioned) through the acpi-dev argument > as well? Not sure if that would appropriate. Ah, looking up my description is unclear. I meant two optional parameters pci-dev or acpi-dev - which one was supplied would indicate the type of handle to be used. >=20 > > Annoyingly for generic ports, (I'm reusing this infrastructure here) > > the kernel code currently only deals with the ACPI form (for CXL host > > bridges).=A0 Given I point that at the bus of a PXB_CXL it is both > > a PCI device, and the only handle we have for getting to the > > Root Bridge ACPI handle. =20 >=20 > So IIUC, you need to pass a PCI device to the generic port object, but use > that to reach the ACPI handle and build the Generic port affinity structu= re > for an ACPI device? Yes. Slightly shortcut is that the UID is the bus number for all the relevant devices so I can abuse that. QEMU doesn't keep track of the ACPI handles directly so this is the current cleanest solution. >=20 > > So I think I've argued myself around to thinking we need to extend > > the interface with another optional parameter if we ever do support > > the ACPI handle for generic initiators :( > > > > Jonatha =20