On 02/17/2012 11:13 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> When one vcpu wants to kick another, it can issue a special IPI instruction
> called msgsnd. This patch emulates this instruction, its clearing counterpart
> and the infrastructure required to actually trigger that interrupt inside
> a guest vcpu.
>
> With this patch, SMP guests on e500mc work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 6 +++
> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c | 68
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> index 3dd200d..ce1599d 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c
> @@ -326,6 +326,9 @@ static int kvmppc_booke_irqprio_deliver(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu,
> int_class = INT_CLASS_NONCRIT;
> break;
> case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_CRITICAL:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_E500MC
> + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DBELL_CRIT:
> +#endif
> allowed = vcpu->arch.shared->msr & MSR_CE;
> allowed = allowed && !crit;
> msr_mask = MSR_GS | MSR_ME;
> @@ -342,6 +345,9 @@ static int kvmppc_booke_irqprio_deliver(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu,
> keep_irq = true;
> /* fall through */
> case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_EXTERNAL:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_E500MC
> + case BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DBELL:
> +#endif
This isn't e500mc specific -- it's in the ISA as "Embedded.Processor
Control".
Any harm in just removing the ifdef (similar to tlbilx)?
> allowed = vcpu->arch.shared->msr & MSR_EE;
> allowed = allowed && !crit;
> msr_mask = MSR_GS | MSR_CE | MSR_ME | MSR_DE;
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c
> index 98b6c1c..29d5604 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_emulate.c
> @@ -14,16 +14,74 @@
>
> #include <asm/kvm_ppc.h>
> #include <asm/disassemble.h>
> +#include <asm/dbell.h>
>
> #include "booke.h"
> #include "e500.h"
>
> +#define XOP_MSGSND 206
> +#define XOP_MSGCLR 238
> #define XOP_TLBIVAX 786
> #define XOP_TLBSX 914
> #define XOP_TLBRE 946
> #define XOP_TLBWE 978
> #define XOP_TLBILX 18
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_E500MC
> +static int dbell2prio(ulong param)
> +{
> + int msg = param & PPC_DBELL_TYPE(-1);
Maybe introduce PPC_DBELL_TYPE_MASK or GET_PPC_DBELL_TYPE?
> + int prio = -1;
> +
> + switch (msg) {
> + case PPC_DBELL_TYPE(PPC_DBELL):
> + prio = BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DBELL;
> + break;
> + case PPC_DBELL_TYPE(PPC_DBELL_CRIT):
> + prio = BOOKE_IRQPRIO_DBELL_CRIT;
> + break;
> + default:
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return prio;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvmppc_e500_emul_msgclr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int rb)
> +{
> + ulong param = vcpu->arch.gpr[rb];
> + int prio = dbell2prio(param);
> +
> + if (prio < 0)
> + return EMULATE_FAIL;
> +
> + clear_bit(prio, &vcpu->arch.pending_exceptions);
> + return EMULATE_DONE;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvmppc_e500_emul_msgsnd(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int rb)
> +{
> + ulong param = vcpu->arch.gpr[rb];
> + int prio = dbell2prio(rb);
> + int pir = param & 0x3fff;
Introduce PPC_DBELL_PIR_MASK or GET_PPC_DBELL_PIR?
> + int i;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *cvcpu;
> +
> + if (prio < 0)
> + return EMULATE_FAIL;
> +
> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, cvcpu, vcpu->kvm) {
> + int cpir = cvcpu->arch.shared->pir;
> + if ((param & PPC_DBELL_MSG_BRDCAST) || (cpir == pir)) {
> + set_bit(prio, &cvcpu->arch.pending_exceptions);
> + kvm_vcpu_kick(cvcpu);
> + }
> + }
Should this be a kvm_make_request instead (with a separate
pending_doorbell bool in vcpu that msgclr can act on), considering
earlier discussion of phasing out atomics on pending_exceptions, in
favor of requests?
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
