On 29/07/2019 08:11, David Gibson wrote: > On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:06:27AM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >> On 28/07/2019 09:46, David Gibson wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 01:54:12PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: >>>> This is to perform lookups in the NVT table when a vCPU is dispatched >>>> and possibily resend interrupts. >>>> >>>> Future XIVE chip will use a different class for the model of the >>>> interrupt controller and we might need to change the type of >>>> 'XiveRouter *' to 'Object *' >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> >>> >>> Hrm. This still bothers me. >> >> Your feeling is right. There should be a good reason to link two objects >> together as it can be an issue later on (such P10). It should not be an >> hidden parameter to function calls. this is more or less the case. >> >> See below for more explanation. >> >>> AIUI there can be multiple XiveRouters in the system, yes? >> >> yes and it works relatively well with 4 chips. I say relatively because >> the presenter model is taking a shortcut we should fix. >> >>> And at least theoretically can present irqs from multiple routers? >> >> Yes. the console being the most simple example. We only have one device >> per system on the LPC bus of chip 0. >> >>> In which case what's the rule for which one should be associated with >>> a specific. >>> I guess it's the one on the same chip, but that needs to be explained >>> up front, with some justification of why that's the relevant one. >> >> Yes. we try to minimize the traffic on the PowerBUS so generally CPU >> targets are on the same IC. The EAT on POWER10 should be on the same >> HW chip. >> >> >> I think we can address the proposed changes from another perspective, >> from the presenter one. this is cleaner and reflects better the HW design. >> >> The thread contexts are owned by the presenter. It can scan its list >> when doing CAM matching and when the thread context registers are being >> accessed by a CPU. Adding a XiveRouter parameter to all the TIMA >> operations seems like a better option and solves the problem. >> >> >> The thread context registers are modeled under the CPU object today >> because it was practical for sPAPR but on HW, these are SRAM entries, >> one for each HW thread of the chip. So may be, we should have introduced >> an other table under the XiveRouter to model the contexts but there >> was no real need for the XIVE POWER9 IC of the pseries machine. This >> design might be reaching its limits with PowerNV and POWER10. >> >> >> Looking at : >> >> [PATCH v2 15/17] ppc/pnv: Grab the XiveRouter object from XiveTCTX in >> pnv_xive_get_tctx() >> >> we see that the code adds an extra check on the THREAD_ENABLE registers >> and for that, its needs the IC to which belongs the thread context. This >> code is wrong. We should not be need to find a XiveRouter object from a >> XiveRouter handler. >> >> This is because the xive_presenter_match() routine does: >> >> CPU_FOREACH(cs) { >> XiveTCTX *tctx = xive_router_get_tctx(xrtr, cs); >> >> we should be, instead, looping on the different IC of the system >> looking for a match. Something else to fix. I think I will use the >> PIR to match the CPU of a chip. >> >> >> Looking at POWER10, XIVE internal structures have changed and we will >> need to introduce new IC models, one for PowerNV obviously but surely >> also one for pseries. A third one ... yes, sorry about that. If we go >> in that direction, it would be good to have a common XiveTCTX and not >> link it to a specific XiveRouter (P9 or P10). Another good reason not >> to use that link. >> >> >> So I will rework the end of that patchset. Thanks for having given me >> time to think more about it before merging. I did more experiments and >> the models are now more precise, specially with guest and multichip >> support. > > Ok, good to hear. I will wait for the respin. >
Could you check the patch adding the powernv{8,9} machines ? I am rebasing the respin on top of this patch and introducing a new handler to the machine to perform the CAM line matching. Thanks, C.