On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 06:16:58PM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 11/28/18 4:28 AM, David Gibson wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:57:08AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > >> The XIVE IRQ backend uses the same layout as the new XICS backend but > >> covers the full range of the IRQ number space. The IRQ numbers for the > >> CPU IPIs are allocated at the bottom of this space, below 4K, to > >> preserve compatibility with XICS which does not use that range. > >> > >> This should be enough given that the maximum number of CPUs is 1024 > >> for the sPAPR machine under QEMU. For the record, the biggest POWER8 > >> or POWER9 system has a maximum of 1536 HW threads (16 sockets, 192 > >> cores, SMT8). > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater > >> --- > >> include/hw/ppc/spapr.h | 2 + > >> include/hw/ppc/spapr_irq.h | 7 ++- > >> hw/ppc/spapr.c | 2 +- > >> hw/ppc/spapr_irq.c | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > >> 4 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h b/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h > >> index 6279711fe8f7..1fbc2663e06c 100644 > >> --- a/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h > >> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/spapr.h > >> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ typedef struct sPAPREventLogEntry sPAPREventLogEntry; > >> typedef struct sPAPREventSource sPAPREventSource; > >> typedef struct sPAPRPendingHPT sPAPRPendingHPT; > >> typedef struct ICSState ICSState; > >> +typedef struct sPAPRXive sPAPRXive; > >> > >> #define HPTE64_V_HPTE_DIRTY 0x0000000000000040ULL > >> #define SPAPR_ENTRY_POINT 0x100 > >> @@ -175,6 +176,7 @@ struct sPAPRMachineState { > >> const char *icp_type; > >> int32_t irq_map_nr; > >> unsigned long *irq_map; > >> + sPAPRXive *xive; > >> > >> bool cmd_line_caps[SPAPR_CAP_NUM]; > >> sPAPRCapabilities def, eff, mig; > >> diff --git a/include/hw/ppc/spapr_irq.h b/include/hw/ppc/spapr_irq.h > >> index 0e9229bf219e..c854ae527808 100644 > >> --- a/include/hw/ppc/spapr_irq.h > >> +++ b/include/hw/ppc/spapr_irq.h > >> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > >> /* > >> * IRQ range offsets per device type > >> */ > >> +#define SPAPR_IRQ_IPI 0x0 > >> #define SPAPR_IRQ_EPOW 0x1000 /* XICS_IRQ_BASE offset */ > >> #define SPAPR_IRQ_HOTPLUG 0x1001 > >> #define SPAPR_IRQ_VIO 0x1100 /* 256 VIO devices */ > >> @@ -33,7 +34,8 @@ typedef struct sPAPRIrq { > >> uint32_t nr_irqs; > >> uint32_t nr_msis; > >> > >> - void (*init)(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int nr_irqs, Error **errp); > >> + void (*init)(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int nr_irqs, int nr_servers, > >> + Error **errp); > >> int (*claim)(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq, bool lsi, Error **errp); > >> void (*free)(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq, int num); > >> qemu_irq (*qirq)(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq); > >> @@ -42,8 +44,9 @@ typedef struct sPAPRIrq { > >> > >> extern sPAPRIrq spapr_irq_xics; > >> extern sPAPRIrq spapr_irq_xics_legacy; > >> +extern sPAPRIrq spapr_irq_xive; > >> > >> -void spapr_irq_init(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, Error **errp); > >> +void spapr_irq_init(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int nr_servers, Error **errp); > > > > I don't see why nr_servers needs to become a parameter, since it can > > be derived from spapr within this routine. > > ok. This is true. We can use directly xics_max_server_number(spapr). > > >> int spapr_irq_claim(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq, bool lsi, Error **errp); > >> void spapr_irq_free(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq, int num); > >> qemu_irq spapr_qirq(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq); > >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > >> index e470efe7993c..9f8c19e56e7a 100644 > >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c > >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > >> @@ -2594,7 +2594,7 @@ static void spapr_machine_init(MachineState *machine) > >> spapr_set_vsmt_mode(spapr, &error_fatal); > >> > >> /* Set up Interrupt Controller before we create the VCPUs */ > >> - spapr_irq_init(spapr, &error_fatal); > >> + spapr_irq_init(spapr, xics_max_server_number(spapr), &error_fatal); > > > > We should rename xics_max_server_number() since it's no longer xics > > specific. > > yes. > > >> /* Set up containers for ibm,client-architecture-support negotiated options > >> */ > >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_irq.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_irq.c > >> index bac450ffff23..2569ae1bc7f8 100644 > >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_irq.c > >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_irq.c > >> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ > >> #include "qemu/error-report.h" > >> #include "qapi/error.h" > >> #include "hw/ppc/spapr.h" > >> +#include "hw/ppc/spapr_xive.h" > >> #include "hw/ppc/xics.h" > >> #include "sysemu/kvm.h" > >> > >> @@ -91,7 +92,7 @@ error: > >> } > >> > >> static void spapr_irq_init_xics(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int nr_irqs, > >> - Error **errp) > >> + int nr_servers, Error **errp) > >> { > >> MachineState *machine = MACHINE(spapr); > >> Error *local_err = NULL; > >> @@ -204,10 +205,122 @@ sPAPRIrq spapr_irq_xics = { > >> .print_info = spapr_irq_print_info_xics, > >> }; > >> > >> + /* > >> + * XIVE IRQ backend. > >> + */ > >> +static sPAPRXive *spapr_xive_create(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, > >> + const char *type_xive, int nr_irqs, > >> + int nr_servers, Error **errp) > >> +{ > >> + sPAPRXive *xive; > >> + Error *local_err = NULL; > >> + Object *obj; > >> + uint32_t nr_ends = nr_servers << 3; /* 8 priority ENDs per CPU */ > >> + int i; > >> + > >> + obj = object_new(type_xive); > > > > What's the reason for making the type a parameter, rather than just > > using the #define here. > > KVM. Yeah, I realised that when I'd read a few patches further on. As I commented there, I don't think the separate KVM/TCG subclasses is actually a good pattern to follow. > >> + object_property_set_int(obj, nr_irqs, "nr-irqs", &error_abort); > >> + object_property_set_int(obj, nr_ends, "nr-ends", &error_abort); > > > > This is still within the sPAPR code, and you have a pointer to the > > MachineState, so I don't see why you could't just derive nr_irqs and > > nr_servers from that, rather than having them passed in. > > for nr_servers I agree. nr_irqs comes from the machine class and it will > not make any sense using the machine class in the init routine of the > 'dual' sPAPR IRQ backend supporting both modes. See patch 34 which > initializes both backend for the 'dual' machine. Uh.. I guess I'll comment when I get to that patch, but I don't see why accessing the machine class would be a problem. If we have the MachineState we can get to the MachineClass. > >> + object_property_set_bool(obj, true, "realized", &local_err); > >> + if (local_err) { > >> + error_propagate(errp, local_err); > >> + return NULL; > >> + } > >> + qdev_set_parent_bus(DEVICE(obj), sysbus_get_default()); > > > > Whereas the XiveSource and XiveRouter I think make more sense as > > "device components" rather than SysBusDevice subclasses, > > Yes. I changed that. > > > I think it > > *does* make sense for the PAPR-XIVE object to be a full fledged > > SysBusDevice. > > Ah. That I didn't do but thinking of it, it makes sense as it is the > object managing the TIMA and ESB memory region mapping for the machine. > > > And for that reason, I think it makes more sense to create it with > > qdev_create(), which should avoid having to manually fiddle with the > > parent bus. > > OK. I will give it a try. > > >> + xive = SPAPR_XIVE(obj); > >> + > >> + /* Enable the CPU IPIs */ > >> + for (i = 0; i < nr_servers; ++i) { > >> + spapr_xive_irq_enable(xive, SPAPR_IRQ_IPI + i, false); > > > > This comment possibly belonged on an earlier patch. I don't love the > > "..._enable" name - to me that suggests something runtime rather than > > configuration time. A better option isn't quickly occurring to me > > though :/. > > Instead, I could call the sPAPR IRQ claim method : > > for (i = 0; i < nr_servers; ++i) { > spapr_irq_xive.claim(spapr, SPAPR_IRQ_IPI + i, false, &local_err); > } > > > What it does is to set the EAS_VALID bit in the EAT (it also sets the > LSI bit). what about : > > spapr_xive_irq_validate() > spapr_xive_irq_invalidate() > > or to map the sPAPR IRQ backend names : > > spapr_xive_irq_claim() > spapr_xive_irq_free() Let's use claim/free to match the terms spapr already uses. > > > > > >> + } > >> + > >> + return xive; > >> +} > >> + > >> +static void spapr_irq_init_xive(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int nr_irqs, > >> + int nr_servers, Error **errp) > >> +{ > >> + MachineState *machine = MACHINE(spapr); > >> + Error *local_err = NULL; > >> + > >> + /* KVM XIVE support */ > >> + if (kvm_enabled()) { > >> + if (machine_kernel_irqchip_required(machine)) { > >> + error_setg(errp, "kernel_irqchip requested. no XIVE support"); > >> + return; > >> + } > >> + } > >> + > >> + /* QEMU XIVE support */ > >> + spapr->xive = spapr_xive_create(spapr, TYPE_SPAPR_XIVE, nr_irqs, nr_servers, > >> + &local_err); > >> + if (local_err) { > >> + error_propagate(errp, local_err); > >> + return; > >> + } > >> +} > >> + > >> +static int spapr_irq_claim_xive(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq, bool lsi, > >> + Error **errp) > >> +{ > >> + if (!spapr_xive_irq_enable(spapr->xive, irq, lsi)) { > >> + error_setg(errp, "IRQ %d is invalid", irq); > >> + return -1; > >> + } > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> + > >> +static void spapr_irq_free_xive(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq, int num) > >> +{ > >> + int i; > >> + > >> + for (i = irq; i < irq + num; ++i) { > >> + spapr_xive_irq_disable(spapr->xive, i); > >> + } > >> +} > >> + > >> +static qemu_irq spapr_qirq_xive(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq) > >> +{ > >> + return spapr_xive_qirq(spapr->xive, irq); > >> +} > >> + > >> +static void spapr_irq_print_info_xive(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, > >> + Monitor *mon) > >> +{ > >> + CPUState *cs; > >> + > >> + CPU_FOREACH(cs) { > >> + PowerPCCPU *cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cs); > >> + > >> + xive_tctx_pic_print_info(XIVE_TCTX(cpu->intc), mon); > >> + } > >> + > >> + spapr_xive_pic_print_info(spapr->xive, mon); > > > > Any reason the info dumping routines are split into two? > > Not the same objects. Are you suggesting that we could print all the info > from the sPAPR XIVE model ? including the XiveTCTX. I thought of doing > that also. Fine for me if it's ok for you. Ah.. I think I got xive_pic_print_info() and xive_tctx_pic_print_info() mixed up. Never mind. > > Thanks, > > C. > > > > >> +} > >> + > >> +/* > >> + * XIVE uses the full IRQ number space. Set it to 8K to be compatible > >> + * with XICS. > >> + */ > >> + > >> +#define SPAPR_IRQ_XIVE_NR_IRQS 0x2000 > >> +#define SPAPR_IRQ_XIVE_NR_MSIS (SPAPR_IRQ_XIVE_NR_IRQS - SPAPR_IRQ_MSI) > >> + > >> +sPAPRIrq spapr_irq_xive = { > >> + .nr_irqs = SPAPR_IRQ_XIVE_NR_IRQS, > >> + .nr_msis = SPAPR_IRQ_XIVE_NR_MSIS, > >> + > >> + .init = spapr_irq_init_xive, > >> + .claim = spapr_irq_claim_xive, > >> + .free = spapr_irq_free_xive, > >> + .qirq = spapr_qirq_xive, > >> + .print_info = spapr_irq_print_info_xive, > >> +}; > >> + > >> /* > >> * sPAPR IRQ frontend routines for devices > >> */ > >> -void spapr_irq_init(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, Error **errp) > >> +void spapr_irq_init(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int nr_servers, Error **errp) > >> { > >> sPAPRMachineClass *smc = SPAPR_MACHINE_GET_CLASS(spapr); > >> > >> @@ -216,7 +329,7 @@ void spapr_irq_init(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, Error **errp) > >> spapr_irq_msi_init(spapr, smc->irq->nr_msis); > >> } > >> > >> - smc->irq->init(spapr, smc->irq->nr_irqs, errp); > >> + smc->irq->init(spapr, smc->irq->nr_irqs, nr_servers, errp); > >> } > >> > >> int spapr_irq_claim(sPAPRMachineState *spapr, int irq, bool lsi, Error **errp) > > > -- 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