On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 08:21:10AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> On 2/6/19 2:23 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:55:40PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >> On 2/5/19 6:28 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 12:30:39PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >>>> On 2/4/19 5:45 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 07:43:18PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >>>>>> This will let the guest create a memory mapping to expose the ESB MMIO
> >>>>>> regions used to control the interrupt sources, to trigger events, to
> >>>>>> EOI or to turn off the sources.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@kaod.org>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>  arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h   |  4 ++
> >>>>>>  arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_xive_native.c | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>  2 files changed, 101 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>>>> index 8c876c166ef2..6bb61ba141c2 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>>>> @@ -675,4 +675,8 @@ struct kvm_ppc_cpu_char {
> >>>>>>  #define  KVM_XICS_PRESENTED		(1ULL << 43)
> >>>>>>  #define  KVM_XICS_QUEUED		(1ULL << 44)
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> +/* POWER9 XIVE Native Interrupt Controller */
> >>>>>> +#define KVM_DEV_XIVE_GRP_CTRL		1
> >>>>>> +#define   KVM_DEV_XIVE_GET_ESB_FD	1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Introducing a new FD for ESB and TIMA seems overkill.  Can't you get
> >>>>> to both with an mmap() directly on the xive device fd?  Using the
> >>>>> offset to distinguish which one to map, obviously.
> >>>>
> >>>> The page offset would define some sort of user API. It seems feasible.
> >>>> But I am not sure this would be practical in the future if we need to 
> >>>> tune the length.
> >>>
> >>> Um.. why not?  I mean, yes the XIVE supports rather a lot of
> >>> interrupts, but we have 64-bits of offset we can play with - we can
> >>> leave room for billions of ESB slots and still have room for billions
> >>> of VPs.
> >>
> >> So the first 4 pages could be the TIMA pages and then would come  
> >> the pages for the interrupt ESBs. I think that we can have different 
> >> vm_fault handler for each mapping.
> > 
> > Um.. no, I'm saying you don't need to tightly pack them.  So you could
> > have the ESB pages at 0, the TIMA at, say offset 2^60.
> 
> Well, we know that the TIMA is 4 pages wide and is "directly" related
> with the KVM interrupt device. So being at offset 0 seems a good idea.
> While the ESB segment is of a variable size depending on the number
> of IRQs and it can come after I think.
> 
> >> I wonder how this will work out with pass-through. As Paul said in 
> >> a previous email, it would be better to let QEMU request a new 
> >> mapping to handle the ESB pages of the device being passed through.
> >> I guess this is not a special case, just another offset and length.
> > 
> > Right, if we need multiple "chunks" of ESB pages we can given them
> > each their own terabyte or several.  No need to be stingy with address
> > space.
> 
> You can not put them anywhere. They should map the same interrupt range
> of ESB pages, overlapping with the underlying segment of IPI ESB pages. 

I don't really follow what you're saying here.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson