From: Ganesh G R <ganeshgr@linux.ibm.com>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org
Cc: clg@redhat.com, Glenn Miles <milesg@linux.ibm.com>,
harshpb@linux.ibm.com, gautam@linux.ibm.com,
Aditya Gupta <adityag@linux.ibm.com>,
Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.ibm.com>,
kowal@linux.ibm.com, Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [DISCUSSION] Reworking remote controller access
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 10:14:04 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e8688ff0-5665-4ba6-9c9a-7cfc4adcdcdf@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
Hi all,
A few days ago during the review of the P11 patches, Cedric suggested
removing the use of qdev_get_machine()
[https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/3456f764-616b-412c-839c-aaef4bf1e47c@redhat.com/]
and instead using MMIO to obtain the address of remote virtualization
structures. However, it wasn't feasible to implement this change
alongside the P11 updates, so we opted for a temporary workaround to
eliminate the use of qdev_get_machine().
[https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/900db31c-54d5-410d-934e-347ca0b22ec2@redhat.com/]
Now, we are planning to revisit and improve the way we access remote
controllers. We have considered a couple of approaches:
1. Implement MMIO operations for all BARs
Redirect all remote access through the BARs instead of iterating over
all XIVE instances to retrieve the virtualization structure addresses.
2. Use a dedicated MMIO offset to return the address of the
virtualization structure:
This is a simpler solution, similar to what Cedric implemented for P9,
the idea is to define a special MMIO offset that when accessed returns
the address directly. This avoids the need for qdev_get_machine() and
keeps the design simple.
Any suggestions or feedback on these approaches.
Thanks
Ganesh
reply other threads:[~2025-10-23 4:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=e8688ff0-5665-4ba6-9c9a-7cfc4adcdcdf@linux.ibm.com \
--to=ganeshgr@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=adityag@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=clg@redhat.com \
--cc=fbarrat@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gautam@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=harshpb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kowal@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=mahesh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=milesg@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-ppc@nongnu.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).