From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Xen/arm: Virtual ITS command queue handling
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:54:41 +0100
Message-ID: <1432043681.12989.135.camel@citrix.com>
References: <CALicx6vrJquEdPY=VAHSEoMW5h2eJMgVA19sM+-_-W6vdX2TXQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1431442942.8263.175.camel@citrix.com> <555239ED.2090400@citrix.com>
	<1431523416.8263.273.camel@citrix.com> <55535F30.7040903@citrix.com>
	<1431687548.8943.74.camel@citrix.com> <5555E46F.4010209@citrix.com>
	<1431694697.8943.119.camel@citrix.com> <5555F383.7030909@citrix.com>
	<1432037642.12989.106.camel@citrix.com> <555B3A5C.4090502@citrix.com>
	<1432042604.12989.124.camel@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1432042604.12989.124.camel@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Cc: Vijay Kilari <vijay.kilari@gmail.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Prasun Kapoor <Prasun.Kapoor@caviumnetworks.com>, manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 14:36 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 14:27 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > With the multiple vITS we would have to retrieve the number of vITS.
> > Maybe by extending the xen_arch_domainconfig?
> 
> I'm sure we can find a way.
> 
> The important question is whether we want to go for a N:N vits:pits
> mapping or 1:N.
> 
> So far I think we are leaning (slightly?) towards the 1:N model, if we
> can come up with a satisfactory answer for what to do with global
> commands.

Actually, Julien just mentioned NUMA which I think is a strong argument
for the N:N model.

We need to make a choice here one way or another, since it has knock on
effects on other parts, e.g the handling of SYNC and INVALL etc.

Given that N:N seems likely to be simpler from the Xen side and in any
case doesn't preclude us moving to a 1:N model (or even a 2:N model etc)
in the future how about we start with that?

If there is agreement in taking this direction then I will adjust the
relevant sections of the document to reflect this.

Ian.