From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E324CA9EC3 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 175E72086D for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:49:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 175E72086D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8484A946; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:49:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AtSSNgFUi9sI; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE894A610; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:49:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176E74A610 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:49:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aw+m8OGEMFU0 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga06-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.32]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC1A34A524 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 04:49:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DGGEMS414-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 9CED2566D52269F09AA3; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:49:45 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.173.222.27) by DGGEMS414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:49:34 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/36] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Allow LPI invalidation via the DirectLPI interface To: Marc Zyngier , , References: <20191027144234.8395-1-maz@kernel.org> <20191027144234.8395-4-maz@kernel.org> From: Zenghui Yu Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:49:32 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191027144234.8395-4-maz@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.173.222.27] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Jason Cooper , Robert Richter , Jayachandran C , Thomas Gleixner X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hi Marc, On 2019/10/27 22:42, Marc Zyngier wrote: > We currently don't make much use of the DirectLPI feature, and it would > be beneficial to do this more, if only because it becomes a mandatory > feature for GICv4.1. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier I have no objection to this patch, which says: Reviewed-by: Zenghui Yu But this patch really drives me to look through all callsites of dev_event_to_col(), the abstraction which can be used _only_ with physical LPI mappings. I find that when building the INV command, we use dev_event_to_col() to find the "sync_obj" and then pass it to the following SYNC command. But the "INV+SYNC" will be performed both on physical LPI and *VLPI* (lpi_update_config/its_send_inv). So I have two questions about the way we sending INV on VLPI: 1) Which "sync" command should be followed? SYNC or VSYNC? (we currently use SYNC, while the spec says, SYNC "ensures all outstanding ITS operations associated with *physical* interrupts for the Redistributor are globally observed ...") 2) The "sync_obj" we are currently using seems to be wrong. Thanks, Zenghui _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm