From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] xen/arm: maintenance_interrupt SMP
 fix
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:12:05 +0000
Message-ID: <52E8FE25.1050108@linaro.org>
References: <1390844023-23123-1-git-send-email-oleksandr.tyshchenko@globallogic.com>	<52E69CBC.3090207@linaro.org>
	<CAJEb2DF+qVcvAeOpQUOSoBy_T3iri_MiXkcXFXFdDj916k9ThQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJEb2DF+qVcvAeOpQUOSoBy_T3iri_MiXkcXFXFdDj916k9ThQ@mail.gmail.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: Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr.tyshchenko@globallogic.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Hello Oleksandr,

On 28/01/14 19:25, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:

[..]

>
>     Do you pass-through PPIs to dom0?
>
> If I understand correctly that PPIs is irqs from 16 to 31.
> So yes, I do. I see timer's irqs and maintenance irq which routed to
> both CPUs.

This IRQs are used by Xen, therefore they are emulated for dom0 and 
domU. Xen won't EOI in maintenance_interrupt theses IRQs.

>
> And I have printed all irqs which fall to gic_route_irq_to_guest and
> gic_route_irq functions.
> ...
> (XEN) GIC initialization:
> (XEN)         gic_dist_addr=0000000048211000
> (XEN)         gic_cpu_addr=0000000048212000
> (XEN)         gic_hyp_addr=0000000048214000
> (XEN)         gic_vcpu_addr=0000000048216000
> (XEN)         gic_maintenance_irq=25
> (XEN) GIC: 192 lines, 2 cpus, secure (IID 0000043b).
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq: irq: 25, cpu_mask: 00000001
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq: irq: 30, cpu_mask: 00000001
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq: irq: 26, cpu_mask: 00000001
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq: irq: 27, cpu_mask: 00000001
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq: irq: 104, cpu_mask: 00000001
> (XEN) Using scheduler: SMP Credit Scheduler (credit)
> (XEN) Allocated console ring of 16 KiB.
> (XEN) VFP implementer 0x41 architecture 4 part 0x30 variant 0xf rev 0x0
> (XEN) Bringing up CPU1
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq: irq: 25, cpu_mask: 00000002
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq: irq: 30, cpu_mask: 00000002
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq: irq: 26, cpu_mask: 00000002
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq: irq: 27, cpu_mask: 00000002
> (XEN) CPU 1 booted.
> (XEN) Brought up 2 CPUs
> (XEN) *** LOADING DOMAIN 0 ***
> (XEN) Populate P2M 0xc8000000->0xd0000000 (1:1 mapping for dom0)
> (XEN)
> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq_to_guest: domid: 0, irq: 61, cpu: 0

[..]

> (XEN) >>>>> gic_route_irq_to_guest: domid: 1, irq: 61, cpu: 1

Not related to this patch series, but is it normal that you passthrough 
the same interrupt both to dom0 and domU?

There is few other case like that.

-- 
Julien Grall