Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] hw: encode accessing CPU index in MemTxAttrs

["Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> writes:

> On 9/22/22 14:58, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> We currently have hacks across the hw/ to reference current_cpu to
>> work out what the current accessing CPU is. This breaks in some cases
>> including using gdbstub to access HW state. As we have MemTxAttrs to
>> describe details about the access lets extend it to mention if this is
>> a CPU access and which one it is.
>> There are a number of places we need to fix up including:
>>    CPU helpers directly calling address_space_*() fns
>>    models in hw/ fishing the data out of current_cpu
>> I'll start addressing some of these in following patches.
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> v2
>>    - use separate field cpu_index
>>    - bool for requester_is_cpu
>> ---
>>   include/exec/memattrs.h |  4 ++++
>>   accel/tcg/cputlb.c      | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
>>   hw/core/cpu-sysemu.c    | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>   3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/include/exec/memattrs.h b/include/exec/memattrs.h
>> index 9fb98bc1ef..e83a993c21 100644
>> --- a/include/exec/memattrs.h
>> +++ b/include/exec/memattrs.h
>> @@ -43,6 +43,10 @@ typedef struct MemTxAttrs {
>>        * (see MEMTX_ACCESS_ERROR).
>>        */
>>       unsigned int memory:1;
>> +    /* Requester is CPU (or as CPU, e.g. debug) */
>> +    bool requester_is_cpu:1;
>> +    /* cpu_index (if requester_is_cpu) */
>> +    unsigned int cpu_index:16;
>>       /* Requester ID (for MSI for example) */
>>       unsigned int requester_id:16;
>
> I'm not keen on adding another field like this.

Hmm I thought it was unavoidable from Edgar's comment:

  "CPU's can also have a Master-IDs (Requester IDs) which are unrelated to
  the Clusters CPU index. This is used for example in the Xilinx ZynqMP
  and Xilinx Versal and the XMPU (Memory Protection Units).

  Anyway, I think this approach is an improvement from the current state
  but would rather see a new separate field from requester_id. Overloading
  requester_id will break some of our use-cases (in the Xilinx tree)..."

Of course we don't have to care about external use cases but it seemed
to indicate we might need both.

> I don't think it addresses Peter's point about unique identifiers on
> e.g. the MSI bus. But addressing that is surely an problem for any
> host/pci bridge that supports PCI. Because we're already talking about
> two different busses -- PCI, and the one between the cpu and the
> bridge.

We can return to overloading requester_id with a enum to indicate the
type of bus.

> What bounds our max number of cpus at the moment?  We use "int" in
> struct CPUCore, but that's almost certainly for convenience.
>
> target/s390x/cpu.h:#define S390_MAX_CPUS 248
> hw/i386/pc_piix.c:    m->max_cpus = HVM_MAX_VCPUS;
>
> hw/i386/pc_q35.c:    m->max_cpus = 288;
>
> hw/arm/virt.c:    mc->max_cpus = 512;
>
> hw/arm/sbsa-ref.c:    mc->max_cpus = 512;
>
> hw/i386/microvm.c:    mc->max_cpus = 288;
>
> hw/ppc/spapr.c:    mc->max_cpus = INT32_MAX;
>
>
> Most of these are nicely bounded, but HVM_MAX_VCPUS is a magic number
> from Xen, and ppc appears to be prepared for 31 bits worth of cpus.

From 5642e4513e (spapr.c: do not use MachineClass::max_cpus to limit
CPUs) I think it is being a little optimistic. Even with the beefiest
hosts you start to see diminishing returns by ~12 vCPUs and it won't
take long before each extra vCPU just slows you down.

>
>
>> @@ -1340,8 +1340,13 @@ static uint64_t io_readx(CPUArchState *env, CPUIOTLBEntry *iotlbentry,
>>       uint64_t val;
>>       bool locked = false;
>>       MemTxResult r;
>> +    MemTxAttrs attrs = iotlbentry->attrs;
>>   -    section = iotlb_to_section(cpu, iotlbentry->addr,
>> iotlbentry->attrs);
>> +    /* encode the accessing CPU */
>> +    attrs.requester_is_cpu = 1;
>> +    attrs.cpu_index = cpu->cpu_index;
>
>
> As I said before, we cannot set these generically, or
> MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED means nothing.  Furthermore, they should be set
> at the point we create the tlb entry, not while we're reading it.
> Thus this must be done by each target's tlb_fill function.

I was confused by the last comment because I forgot the TLBs are not
shared between cores. So I can just bang:

    MemTxAttrs attrs = { .cpu_index = cs->cpu_index };

into arm_cpu_tlb_fill and be done with it? Or only when we know it is an
IOTLB being filled?

>
>> @@ -51,13 +51,22 @@ hwaddr cpu_get_phys_page_attrs_debug(CPUState *cpu, vaddr addr,
>>                                        MemTxAttrs *attrs)
>>   {
>>       CPUClass *cc = CPU_GET_CLASS(cpu);
>> +    MemTxAttrs local = { };
>> +    hwaddr res;
>>         if (cc->sysemu_ops->get_phys_page_attrs_debug) {
>> -        return cc->sysemu_ops->get_phys_page_attrs_debug(cpu, addr, attrs);
>> +        res = cc->sysemu_ops->get_phys_page_attrs_debug(cpu, addr, &local);
>> +    } else {
>> +        /* Fallback for CPUs which don't implement the _attrs_ hook */
>> +        local = MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED;
>> +        res = cc->sysemu_ops->get_phys_page_debug(cpu, addr);
>>       }
>> -    /* Fallback for CPUs which don't implement the _attrs_ hook */
>> -    *attrs = MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED;
>> -    return cc->sysemu_ops->get_phys_page_debug(cpu, addr);
>> +
>> +    /* debug access is treated as though it came from the CPU */
>> +    local.requester_is_cpu = 1;
>> +    local.cpu_index = cpu->cpu_index;
>> +    *attrs = local;
>> +    return res;
>
> Again, I don't think it makes any sense to have .unspecified set, and anything else non-zero.
>
>
> r~


-- 
Alex Bennée