Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/16] Enable message delivery via IRQs

[Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> >> This patch allows to optionally attach a message to an IRQ event. The
>> >> message can contain a payload reference and a callback that the IRQ
>> >> handler may invoke to report the delivery result. The former can be used
>> >> to model message signaling interrupts, the latter to cleanly implement
>> >> IRQ de-coalescing logics.
>> >
>> > I don't like this. qemu_irq is a level triggered interface. Redundant
>> > calls to qemu_set_irq should (in principle) be a no-op.  If you want
>> > message passing then IMO you should be using something else.
>>
>> Keeping the optional message and qemu_irq together means that we can
>> reuse the existing IRQ subsystem. I'd guess something more separated
>> would need duplicate allocation and delivery support and maybe even
>> SysBus etc. would need lots of work to support a new class of IRQs.
>
> How do you propose message passing is handled when you have nested multi-layer
> interrupt trees?

Do we have such trees somewhere? I think message passing interrupts
are only used in bus based systems, like PCI or UPA/JBUS etc. I don't
know how LAPIC/IOAPIC bus works, it could be similar.

> How long is the message data valid for?

Currently it's valid for the duration of the call. It may make sense
to extend that later in order to handle EOIs.

> Who owns it?

The source.

> How is a
> receiver meant to know for format of the message being delivered, and who it's
> intended for?

This depends on the architecture. On Sparc64 the message is specified
by the guest or OF.

> IMO message triggered systems are fundamentally different to level states.
> qemu_irq represents a level state, and I'd really like for it to stay that
> way.

In real HW (MSI or Sparc64 mondo interrupts) a bus delivers the
message. But our buses only handle address and data lines.

> If we need/want a generic message passing interface, then that's a different
> problem, and needs to be done in such a way that the devices always agree on
> the type of message being passed.
>
> TBH I preferred the original system whereby the source can query the state of
> the sink (i.e "are you ignoring this line?").  Note that conceptually this
> should be *querying* state, not responding to an event.

It's simple, but I think too simple. It would work for the coalescing
interrupt hack but useless for other things.