All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>,
	Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: "Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
	"Ben Widawsky" <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>,
	"Samarth Saxena" <samarths@cadence.com>,
	"Chris Browy" <cbrowy@avery-design.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxarm@huawei.com, "Shreyas Shah" <shreyas.shah@elastics.cloud>,
	"Saransh Gupta1" <saransh@ibm.com>,
	"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel@redhat.com>,
	"Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
	"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
	"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
	"Shameerali Kolothum Thodi"
	<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
	"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/46] CXl 2.0 emulation Support
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:16:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1efbfeeb-2598-57c5-2e2d-4f5fa2538aa7@ilande.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220316165034.000037e7@Huawei.com>

On 16/03/2022 16:50, Jonathan Cameron via wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:02:22 +0800
> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 11:28:27AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Hi, Jonathan,
>>
>>>    
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20220306174137.5707-35-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/
>>>>
>>>> Having mr->ops set but with memory_access_is_direct() returning true sounds
>>>> weird to me.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to have no understanding of the whole picture, but.. could you share
>>>> more on what's the interleaving requirement on the proxying, and why it
>>>> can't be done with adding some IO memory regions as sub-regions upon the
>>>> file one?
>>>
>>> The proxying requirement is simply a means to read/write to a computed address
>>> within a memory region. There may well be a better way to do that.
>>>
>>> If I understand your suggestion correctly you would need a very high
>>> number of IO memory regions to be created dynamically when particular sets of
>>> registers across multiple devices in the topology are all programmed.
>>>
>>> The interleave can be 256 bytes across up to 16x, many terabyte, devices.
>>> So assuming a simple set of 16 1TB devices I think you'd need about 4x10^9
>>> IO regions.  Even for a minimal useful test case of largest interleave
>>> set of 16x 256MB devices (256MB is minimum size the specification allows per
>>> decoded region at the device) and 16 way interleave we'd need 10^6 IO regions.
>>> Any idea if that approach would scale sensibly to this number of regions?
>>>
>>> There are also complexities to getting all the information in one place to
>>> work out which IO memory regions maps where in PA space. Current solution is
>>> to do that mapping in the same way the hardware does which is hierarchical,
>>> so we walk the path to the device, picking directions based on each interleave
>>> decoder that we meet.
>>> Obviously this is a bit slow but I only really care about correctness at the
>>> moment.  I can think of various approaches to speeding it up but I'm not sure
>>> if we will ever care about performance.
>>>
>>> https://gitlab.com/jic23/qemu/-/blob/cxl-v7-draft-2-for-test/hw/cxl/cxl-host.c#L131
>>> has the logic for that and as you can see it's fairly simple because we are always
>>> going down the topology following the decoders.
>>>
>>> Below I have mapped out an algorithm I think would work for doing it with
>>> IO memory regions as subregions.
>>>
>>> We could fake the whole thing by limiting ourselves to small host
>>> memory windows which are always directly backed, but then I wouldn't
>>> achieve the main aim of this which is to provide a test base for the OS code.
>>> To do that I need real interleave so I can seed the files with test patterns
>>> and verify the accesses hit the correct locations. Emulating what the hardware
>>> is actually doing on a device by device basis is the easiest way I have
>>> come up with to do that.
>>>
>>> Let me try to provide some more background so you hopefully don't have
>>> to have read the specs to follow what is going on!
>>> There are an example for directly connected (no switches) topology in the
>>> docs
>>>
>>> https://gitlab.com/jic23/qemu/-/blob/cxl-v7-draft-2-for-test/docs/system/devices/cxl.rst
>>>
>>> The overall picture is we have a large number of CXL Type 3 memory devices,
>>> which at runtime (by OS at boot/on hotplug) are configured into various
>>> interleaving sets with hierarchical decoding at the host + host bridge
>>> + switch levels. For test setups I probably need to go to around 32 devices
>>> so I can hit various configurations simultaneously.
>>> No individual device has visibility of the full interleave setup - hence
>>> the walk in the existing code through the various decoders to find the
>>> final Device Physical address.
>>>
>>> At the host level the host provides a set of Physical Address windows with
>>> a fixed interleave decoding across the different host bridges in the system
>>> (CXL Fixed Memory windows, CFMWs)
>>> On a real system these have to be large enough to allow for any memory
>>> devices that might be hotplugged and all possible configurations (so
>>> with 2 host bridges you need at least 3 windows in the many TB range,
>>> much worse as the number of host bridges goes up). It'll be worse than
>>> this when we have QoS groups, but the current Qemu code just puts all
>>> the windows in group 0.  Hence my first thought of just putting memory
>>> behind those doesn't scale (a similar approach to this was in the
>>> earliest versions of this patch set - though the full access path
>>> wasn't wired up).
>>>
>>> The granularity can be in powers of 2 from 256 bytes to 16 kbytes
>>>
>>> Next each host bridge has programmable address decoders which take the
>>> incoming (often already interleaved) memory access and direct them to
>>> appropriate root ports.  The root ports can be connected to a switch
>>> which has additional address decoders in the upstream port to decide
>>> which downstream port to route to.  Note we currently only support 1 level
>>> of switches but it's easy to make this algorithm recursive to support
>>> multiple switch levels (currently the kernel proposals only support 1 level)
>>>
>>> Finally the End Point with the actual memory receives the interleaved request and
>>> takes the full address and (for power of 2 decoding - we don't yet support
>>> 3,6 and 12 way which is more complex and there is no kernel support yet)
>>> it drops a few address bits and adds an offset for the decoder used to
>>> calculate it's own device physical address.  Note device will support
>>> multiple interleave sets for different parts of it's file once we add
>>> multiple decoder support (on the todo list).
>>>
>>> So the current solution is straight forward (with the exception of that
>>> proxying) because it follows the same decoding as used in real hardware
>>> to route the memory accesses. As a result we get a read/write to a
>>> device physical address and hence proxy that.  If any of the decoders
>>> along the path are not configured then we error out at that stage.
>>>
>>> To create the equivalent as IO subregions I think we'd have to do the
>>> following from (this might be mediated by some central entity that
>>> doesn't currently exist, or done on demand from which ever CXL device
>>> happens to have it's decoder set up last)
>>>
>>> 1) Wait for a decoder commit (enable) on any component. Goto 2.
>>> 2) Walk the topology (up to host decoder, down to memory device)
>>> If a complete interleaving path has been configured -
>>>     i.e. we have committed decoders all the way to the memory
>>>     device goto step 3, otherwise return to step 1 to wait for
>>>     more decoders to be committed.
>>> 3) For the memory region being supplied by the memory device,
>>>     add subregions to map the device physical address (address
>>>     in the file) for each interleave stride to the appropriate
>>>     host Physical Address.
>>> 4) Return to step 1 to wait for more decoders to commit.
>>>
>>> So summary is we can do it with IO regions, but there are a lot of them
>>> and the setup is somewhat complex as we don't have one single point in
>>> time where we know all the necessary information is available to compute
>>> the right addresses.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your suggestions if I haven't caused more confusion!
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
>>
>> Thanks for the write up - I must confess they're a lot! :)
>>
>> I merely only learned what is CXL today, and I'm not very experienced on
>> device modeling either, so please bare with me with stupid questions..
>>
>> IIUC so far CXL traps these memory accesses using CXLFixedWindow.mr.
>> That's a normal IO region, which looks very reasonable.
>>
>> However I'm confused why patch "RFC: softmmu/memory: Add ops to
>> memory_region_ram_init_from_file" helped.
>>
>> Per my knowledge, all the memory accesses upon this CFMW window trapped
>> using this IO region already.  There can be multiple memory file objects
>> underneath, and when read/write happens the object will be decoded from
>> cxl_cfmws_find_device() as you referenced.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>
>> However I see nowhere that these memory objects got mapped as sub-regions
>> into parent (CXLFixedWindow.mr).  Then I don't understand why they cannot
>> be trapped.
> 
> AS you note they aren't mapped into the parent mr, hence we are trapping.
> The parent mem_ops are responsible for decoding the 'which device' +
> 'what address in device memory space'. Once we've gotten that info
> the question is how do I actually do the access?
> 
> Mapping as subregions seems unwise due to the huge number required.
> 
>>
>> To ask in another way: what will happen if you simply revert this RFC
>> patch?  What will go wrong?
> 
> The call to memory_region_dispatch_read()
> https://gitlab.com/jic23/qemu/-/blob/cxl-v7-draft-2-for-test/hw/mem/cxl_type3.c#L556
> 
> would call memory_region_access_valid() that calls
> mr->ops->valid.accepts() which is set to
> unassigned_mem_accepts() and hence...
> you get back a MEMTX_DECODE_ERROR back and an exception in the
> guest.
> 
> That wouldn't happen with a non proxied access to the ram as
> those paths never uses the ops as memory_access_is_direct() is called
> and simply memcpy used without any involvement of the ops.
> 
> Is a better way to proxy those writes to the backing files?
> 
> I was fishing a bit in the dark here and saw the existing ops defined
> for a different purpose for VFIO
> 
> 4a2e242bbb ("memory Don't use memcpy for ram_device regions")
> 
> and those allowed the use of memory_region_dispatch_write() to work.
> 
> Hence the RFC marking on that patch :)

FWIW I had a similar issue implementing manual aliasing in one of my q800 patches 
where I found that dispatching a read to a non-IO memory region didn't work with 
memory_region_dispatch_read(). The solution in my case was to switch to using the 
address space API instead, which whilst requiring an absolute address for the target 
address space, handles the dispatch correctly across all different memory region types.

Have a look at 
https://gitlab.com/mcayland/qemu/-/commit/318e12579c7570196187652da13542db86b8c722 to 
see how I did this in macio_alias_read().

IIRC from my experiments in this area, my conclusion was that 
memory_region_dispatch_read() can only work correctly if mapping directly between 2 
IO memory regions, and for anything else you need to use the address space API.


ATB,

Mark.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>,
	Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	"Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
	"Ben Widawsky" <ben.widawsky@intel.com>,
	qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Samarth Saxena" <samarths@cadence.com>,
	"Chris Browy" <cbrowy@avery-design.com>,
	linuxarm@huawei.com, linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org,
	"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@redhat.com>,
	"Shreyas Shah" <shreyas.shah@elastics.cloud>,
	"Saransh Gupta1" <saransh@ibm.com>,
	"Shameerali Kolothum Thodi"
	<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
	"Marcel Apfelbaum" <marcel@redhat.com>,
	"Igor Mammedov" <imammedo@redhat.com>,
	"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
	"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>,
	"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 00/46] CXl 2.0 emulation Support
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:16:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1efbfeeb-2598-57c5-2e2d-4f5fa2538aa7@ilande.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220316165034.000037e7@Huawei.com>

On 16/03/2022 16:50, Jonathan Cameron via wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 16:02:22 +0800
> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 11:28:27AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Hi, Jonathan,
>>
>>>    
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20220306174137.5707-35-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/
>>>>
>>>> Having mr->ops set but with memory_access_is_direct() returning true sounds
>>>> weird to me.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to have no understanding of the whole picture, but.. could you share
>>>> more on what's the interleaving requirement on the proxying, and why it
>>>> can't be done with adding some IO memory regions as sub-regions upon the
>>>> file one?
>>>
>>> The proxying requirement is simply a means to read/write to a computed address
>>> within a memory region. There may well be a better way to do that.
>>>
>>> If I understand your suggestion correctly you would need a very high
>>> number of IO memory regions to be created dynamically when particular sets of
>>> registers across multiple devices in the topology are all programmed.
>>>
>>> The interleave can be 256 bytes across up to 16x, many terabyte, devices.
>>> So assuming a simple set of 16 1TB devices I think you'd need about 4x10^9
>>> IO regions.  Even for a minimal useful test case of largest interleave
>>> set of 16x 256MB devices (256MB is minimum size the specification allows per
>>> decoded region at the device) and 16 way interleave we'd need 10^6 IO regions.
>>> Any idea if that approach would scale sensibly to this number of regions?
>>>
>>> There are also complexities to getting all the information in one place to
>>> work out which IO memory regions maps where in PA space. Current solution is
>>> to do that mapping in the same way the hardware does which is hierarchical,
>>> so we walk the path to the device, picking directions based on each interleave
>>> decoder that we meet.
>>> Obviously this is a bit slow but I only really care about correctness at the
>>> moment.  I can think of various approaches to speeding it up but I'm not sure
>>> if we will ever care about performance.
>>>
>>> https://gitlab.com/jic23/qemu/-/blob/cxl-v7-draft-2-for-test/hw/cxl/cxl-host.c#L131
>>> has the logic for that and as you can see it's fairly simple because we are always
>>> going down the topology following the decoders.
>>>
>>> Below I have mapped out an algorithm I think would work for doing it with
>>> IO memory regions as subregions.
>>>
>>> We could fake the whole thing by limiting ourselves to small host
>>> memory windows which are always directly backed, but then I wouldn't
>>> achieve the main aim of this which is to provide a test base for the OS code.
>>> To do that I need real interleave so I can seed the files with test patterns
>>> and verify the accesses hit the correct locations. Emulating what the hardware
>>> is actually doing on a device by device basis is the easiest way I have
>>> come up with to do that.
>>>
>>> Let me try to provide some more background so you hopefully don't have
>>> to have read the specs to follow what is going on!
>>> There are an example for directly connected (no switches) topology in the
>>> docs
>>>
>>> https://gitlab.com/jic23/qemu/-/blob/cxl-v7-draft-2-for-test/docs/system/devices/cxl.rst
>>>
>>> The overall picture is we have a large number of CXL Type 3 memory devices,
>>> which at runtime (by OS at boot/on hotplug) are configured into various
>>> interleaving sets with hierarchical decoding at the host + host bridge
>>> + switch levels. For test setups I probably need to go to around 32 devices
>>> so I can hit various configurations simultaneously.
>>> No individual device has visibility of the full interleave setup - hence
>>> the walk in the existing code through the various decoders to find the
>>> final Device Physical address.
>>>
>>> At the host level the host provides a set of Physical Address windows with
>>> a fixed interleave decoding across the different host bridges in the system
>>> (CXL Fixed Memory windows, CFMWs)
>>> On a real system these have to be large enough to allow for any memory
>>> devices that might be hotplugged and all possible configurations (so
>>> with 2 host bridges you need at least 3 windows in the many TB range,
>>> much worse as the number of host bridges goes up). It'll be worse than
>>> this when we have QoS groups, but the current Qemu code just puts all
>>> the windows in group 0.  Hence my first thought of just putting memory
>>> behind those doesn't scale (a similar approach to this was in the
>>> earliest versions of this patch set - though the full access path
>>> wasn't wired up).
>>>
>>> The granularity can be in powers of 2 from 256 bytes to 16 kbytes
>>>
>>> Next each host bridge has programmable address decoders which take the
>>> incoming (often already interleaved) memory access and direct them to
>>> appropriate root ports.  The root ports can be connected to a switch
>>> which has additional address decoders in the upstream port to decide
>>> which downstream port to route to.  Note we currently only support 1 level
>>> of switches but it's easy to make this algorithm recursive to support
>>> multiple switch levels (currently the kernel proposals only support 1 level)
>>>
>>> Finally the End Point with the actual memory receives the interleaved request and
>>> takes the full address and (for power of 2 decoding - we don't yet support
>>> 3,6 and 12 way which is more complex and there is no kernel support yet)
>>> it drops a few address bits and adds an offset for the decoder used to
>>> calculate it's own device physical address.  Note device will support
>>> multiple interleave sets for different parts of it's file once we add
>>> multiple decoder support (on the todo list).
>>>
>>> So the current solution is straight forward (with the exception of that
>>> proxying) because it follows the same decoding as used in real hardware
>>> to route the memory accesses. As a result we get a read/write to a
>>> device physical address and hence proxy that.  If any of the decoders
>>> along the path are not configured then we error out at that stage.
>>>
>>> To create the equivalent as IO subregions I think we'd have to do the
>>> following from (this might be mediated by some central entity that
>>> doesn't currently exist, or done on demand from which ever CXL device
>>> happens to have it's decoder set up last)
>>>
>>> 1) Wait for a decoder commit (enable) on any component. Goto 2.
>>> 2) Walk the topology (up to host decoder, down to memory device)
>>> If a complete interleaving path has been configured -
>>>     i.e. we have committed decoders all the way to the memory
>>>     device goto step 3, otherwise return to step 1 to wait for
>>>     more decoders to be committed.
>>> 3) For the memory region being supplied by the memory device,
>>>     add subregions to map the device physical address (address
>>>     in the file) for each interleave stride to the appropriate
>>>     host Physical Address.
>>> 4) Return to step 1 to wait for more decoders to commit.
>>>
>>> So summary is we can do it with IO regions, but there are a lot of them
>>> and the setup is somewhat complex as we don't have one single point in
>>> time where we know all the necessary information is available to compute
>>> the right addresses.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your suggestions if I haven't caused more confusion!
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
>>
>> Thanks for the write up - I must confess they're a lot! :)
>>
>> I merely only learned what is CXL today, and I'm not very experienced on
>> device modeling either, so please bare with me with stupid questions..
>>
>> IIUC so far CXL traps these memory accesses using CXLFixedWindow.mr.
>> That's a normal IO region, which looks very reasonable.
>>
>> However I'm confused why patch "RFC: softmmu/memory: Add ops to
>> memory_region_ram_init_from_file" helped.
>>
>> Per my knowledge, all the memory accesses upon this CFMW window trapped
>> using this IO region already.  There can be multiple memory file objects
>> underneath, and when read/write happens the object will be decoded from
>> cxl_cfmws_find_device() as you referenced.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>
>> However I see nowhere that these memory objects got mapped as sub-regions
>> into parent (CXLFixedWindow.mr).  Then I don't understand why they cannot
>> be trapped.
> 
> AS you note they aren't mapped into the parent mr, hence we are trapping.
> The parent mem_ops are responsible for decoding the 'which device' +
> 'what address in device memory space'. Once we've gotten that info
> the question is how do I actually do the access?
> 
> Mapping as subregions seems unwise due to the huge number required.
> 
>>
>> To ask in another way: what will happen if you simply revert this RFC
>> patch?  What will go wrong?
> 
> The call to memory_region_dispatch_read()
> https://gitlab.com/jic23/qemu/-/blob/cxl-v7-draft-2-for-test/hw/mem/cxl_type3.c#L556
> 
> would call memory_region_access_valid() that calls
> mr->ops->valid.accepts() which is set to
> unassigned_mem_accepts() and hence...
> you get back a MEMTX_DECODE_ERROR back and an exception in the
> guest.
> 
> That wouldn't happen with a non proxied access to the ram as
> those paths never uses the ops as memory_access_is_direct() is called
> and simply memcpy used without any involvement of the ops.
> 
> Is a better way to proxy those writes to the backing files?
> 
> I was fishing a bit in the dark here and saw the existing ops defined
> for a different purpose for VFIO
> 
> 4a2e242bbb ("memory Don't use memcpy for ram_device regions")
> 
> and those allowed the use of memory_region_dispatch_write() to work.
> 
> Hence the RFC marking on that patch :)

FWIW I had a similar issue implementing manual aliasing in one of my q800 patches 
where I found that dispatching a read to a non-IO memory region didn't work with 
memory_region_dispatch_read(). The solution in my case was to switch to using the 
address space API instead, which whilst requiring an absolute address for the target 
address space, handles the dispatch correctly across all different memory region types.

Have a look at 
https://gitlab.com/mcayland/qemu/-/commit/318e12579c7570196187652da13542db86b8c722 to 
see how I did this in macio_alias_read().

IIRC from my experiments in this area, my conclusion was that 
memory_region_dispatch_read() can only work correctly if mapping directly between 2 
IO memory regions, and for anything else you need to use the address space API.


ATB,

Mark.

  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-16 17:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 124+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-06 17:40 [PATCH v7 00/46] CXl 2.0 emulation Support Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:40 ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v7 01/46] hw/pci/cxl: Add a CXL component type (interface) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:40   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v7 02/46] hw/cxl/component: Introduce CXL components (8.1.x, 8.2.5) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:40   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v7 03/46] MAINTAINERS: Add entry for Compute Express Link Emulation Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:40   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v7 04/46] hw/cxl/device: Introduce a CXL device (8.2.8) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:40   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v7 05/46] hw/cxl/device: Implement the CAP array (8.2.8.1-2) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:40   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v7 06/46] hw/cxl/device: Implement basic mailbox (8.2.8.4) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:40   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v7 07/46] hw/cxl/device: Add memory device utilities Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:40   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v7 08/46] hw/cxl/device: Add cheap EVENTS implementation (8.2.9.1) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:40   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 09/46] hw/cxl/device: Timestamp implementation (8.2.9.3) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 10/46] hw/cxl/device: Add log commands (8.2.9.4) + CEL Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 11/46] hw/pxb: Use a type for realizing expanders Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 12/46] hw/pci/cxl: Create a CXL bus type Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 13/46] cxl: Machine level control on whether CXL support is enabled Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 14/46] hw/pxb: Allow creation of a CXL PXB (host bridge) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 15/46] qtest/cxl: Introduce initial test for pxb-cxl only Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 16/46] hw/cxl/rp: Add a root port Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 17/46] hw/cxl/device: Add a memory device (8.2.8.5) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 18/46] hw/cxl/device: Implement MMIO HDM decoding (8.2.5.12) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 19/46] hw/cxl/device: Add some trivial commands Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 20/46] hw/cxl/device: Plumb real Label Storage Area (LSA) sizing Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 21/46] hw/cxl/device: Implement get/set Label Storage Area (LSA) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 22/46] qtests/cxl: Add initial root port and CXL type3 tests Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 23/46] hw/cxl/component: Implement host bridge MMIO (8.2.5, table 142) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 24/46] acpi/cxl: Add _OSC implementation (9.14.2) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 21:31   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-06 21:31     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-07 17:01     ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-07 17:01       ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 25/46] acpi/cxl: Create the CEDT (9.14.1) Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 26/46] hw/cxl/component: Add utils for interleave parameter encoding/decoding Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 27/46] hw/cxl/host: Add support for CXL Fixed Memory Windows Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 28/46] acpi/cxl: Introduce CFMWS structures in CEDT Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 29/46] hw/pci-host/gpex-acpi: Add support for dsdt construction for pxb-cxl Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 30/46] pci/pcie_port: Add pci_find_port_by_pn() Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 31/46] CXL/cxl_component: Add cxl_get_hb_cstate() Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 32/46] mem/cxl_type3: Add read and write functions for associated hostmem Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 33/46] cxl/cxl-host: Add memops for CFMWS region Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 34/46] RFC: softmmu/memory: Add ops to memory_region_ram_init_from_file Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 35/46] hw/cxl/component Add a dumb HDM decoder handler Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 36/46] i386/pc: Enable CXL fixed memory windows Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 37/46] tests/acpi: q35: Allow addition of a CXL test Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 38/46] qtests/bios-tables-test: Add a test for CXL emulation Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 39/46] tests/acpi: Add tables " Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 40/46] qtest/cxl: Add more complex test cases with CFMWs Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 41/46] hw/arm/virt: Basic CXL enablement on pci_expander_bridge instances pxb-cxl Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 42/46] qtest/cxl: Add aarch64 virt test for CXL Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 43/46] docs/cxl: Add initial Compute eXpress Link (CXL) documentation Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 44/46] pci-bridge/cxl_upstream: Add a CXL switch upstream port Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 45/46] pci-bridge/cxl_downstream: Add a CXL switch downstream port Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 17:41 ` [PATCH v7 46/46] cxl/cxl-host: Support interleave decoding with one level of switches Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-06 17:41   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-06 21:33 ` [PATCH v7 00/46] CXl 2.0 emulation Support Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-06 21:33   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-07  9:39   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-07  9:39     ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-09  8:15     ` Peter Xu
2022-03-09  8:15       ` Peter Xu
2022-03-09 11:28       ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-09 11:28         ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-10  8:02         ` Peter Xu
2022-03-10  8:02           ` Peter Xu
2022-03-16 16:50           ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-16 16:50             ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-16 17:16             ` Mark Cave-Ayland [this message]
2022-03-16 17:16               ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-03-16 17:58               ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-16 17:58                 ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-16 18:26                 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-16 18:26                   ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-17  8:12                   ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-03-17  8:12                     ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-03-17 16:47                     ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-17 16:47                       ` Jonathan Cameron via
2022-03-18  8:14                       ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-03-18  8:14                         ` Mark Cave-Ayland
2022-03-18 10:08                         ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-03-18 10:08                           ` Jonathan Cameron via

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=1efbfeeb-2598-57c5-2e2d-4f5fa2538aa7@ilande.co.uk \
    --to=mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk \
    --cc=Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com \
    --cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
    --cc=armbru@redhat.com \
    --cc=ben.widawsky@intel.com \
    --cc=cbrowy@avery-design.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=f4bug@amsat.org \
    --cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=marcel@redhat.com \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --cc=peterx@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=samarths@cadence.com \
    --cc=saransh@ibm.com \
    --cc=shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com \
    --cc=shreyas.shah@elastics.cloud \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.