On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 09:25:04AM +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> Was there a crashing.org shutdown ? 
> 
>   Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
> 	by in5.mail.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43mYnj0nrlz1N7KC
> 	for <clg@kaod.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 22:38:00 +0000 (UTC)
>   Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
> 	by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x0NLZf4K021092;
> 	Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:35:43 -0600
> 
> 
> On 1/23/19 10:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 20:07 +0100, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
> >>  Event Assignment Structure, a.k.a IVE (Interrupt Virtualization Entry)
> >>
> >> All the names changed somewhere between XIVE v1 and XIVE v2. OPAL and
> >> Linux should be adjusted ...
> > 
> > All the names changed between the HW design and the "architecture"
> > document. The HW guys use the old names, the architecture the new
> > names, and Linux & OPAL mostly use the old ones because frankly the new
> > names suck big time.
> 
> Well, It does not make XIVE any clearer ... I did prefer the v1 names
> but there was some naming overlap in the concepts. 
> 
> >> It would be good to talk a little about the nested support (offline 
> >> may be) to make sure that we are not missing some major interface that 
> >> would require a lot of change. If we need to prepare ground, I think
> >> the timing is good.
> >>
> >> The size of the IRQ number space might be a problem. It seems we 
> >> would need to increase it considerably to support multiple nested 
> >> guests. That said I haven't look much how nested is designed.  
> > 
> > The size of the VP space is a bigger concern. Even today. We really
> > need qemu to tell the max #cpu to KVM so we can allocate less of them.
> 
> ah yes. we would also need to reduce the number of available priorities 
> per CPU to have more EQ descriptors available if I recall well. 
> 
> > As for nesting, I suggest for the foreseeable future we stick to XICS
> > emulation in nested guests.
> 
> ok. so no kernel_irqchip at all. hmm.  

That would certainly be step 0, making sure the capability advertises
this correctly.  I think we do want to make XICs-on-XIVE emulation
work in a KVM L1 (so we'd need to have it make XIVE hcalls to the L0
instead of OPAL calls).

XIVE-on-XIVE for L1 would be nice too, which would mean implementing
the XIVE hcalls from the L2 in terms of XIVE hcalls to the L0.  I
think it's ok to delay this indefinitely as long as the caps advertise
correctly so that qemu will use userspace emulation until its ready.

> I was wondering how possible it was to have L2 initialize the underlying 
> OPAL structures in the L0 hypervisor. May be with a sort of proxy hcall 
> which would perform the initialization in QEMU L1 on behalf of L2.
> 

-- 
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