On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 05:45:38PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > On 12/07/2019 03:15, David Gibson wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 07:54:57AM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > >> On 03/07/2019 04:07, David Gibson wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:45:59PM +0200, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > >>>> This is to perform lookups in the NVT table when a vCPU is dispatched > >>>> and possibly resend interrupts. > >>> > >>> I'm slightly confused by this one. Aren't there multiple router > >>> objects, each of which can deliver to any thread? In which case what > >>> router object is associated with a specific TCTX? > >> > >> when a vCPU is dispatched on a HW thread, the hypervisor does a store > >> on the CAM line to store the VP id. At that time, it checks the IPB in > >> the associated NVT structure and notifies the thread if an interrupt is > >> pending. > >> > >> We need to do a NVT lookup, just like the presenter in HW, hence the > >> router pointer. You should look at the following patch which clarifies > >> the resend sequence. > > > > Hm, ok. > > > >>>> Future XIVE chip will use a different class for the model of the > >>>> interrupt controller. So use an 'Object *' instead of a 'XiveRouter *'. > >>> > >>> This seems odd to me, shouldn't it be an interface pointer or > >>> something in that case? > >> > >> I have duplicated most of the XIVE models for P10 because the internal > >> structures have changed. I managed to keep the XiveSource and XiveTCTX > >> but we now have a Xive10Router, this is the reason why. > > > > Right, but XiveRouter and Xive10Router must have something in common > > if they can both be used here. Usually that's expressed as a shared > > QOM interface - in which case you can use a pointer to the interface, > > rathe than using Object * which kind of implies *anything* can go > > here. > > Yeah. I also think it would be better to have a common base object but > the class don't have much in common. Here is what I have for now :
Uh.. QOM interfaces don't require there to be a common base object,
only common methods.
>
> P9:
>
> typedef struct XiveRouterClass {
> SysBusDeviceClass parent;
>
> /* XIVE table accessors */
> int (*get_eas)(XiveRouter *xrtr, uint8_t eas_blk, uint32_t eas_idx,
> XiveEAS *eas);
> int (*get_end)(XiveRouter *xrtr, uint8_t end_blk, uint32_t end_idx,
> XiveEND *end);
> int (*write_end)(XiveRouter *xrtr, uint8_t end_blk, uint32_t end_idx,
> XiveEND *end, uint8_t word_number);
> int (*get_nvt)(XiveRouter *xrtr, uint8_t nvt_blk, uint32_t nvt_idx,
> XiveNVT *nvt);
> int (*write_nvt)(XiveRouter *xrtr, uint8_t nvt_blk, uint32_t nvt_idx,
> XiveNVT *nvt, uint8_t word_number);
> XiveTCTX *(*get_tctx)(XiveRouter *xrtr, CPUState *cs);
> uint8_t (*get_block_id)(XiveRouter *xrtr);
> } XiveRouterClass;
>
> and P10:
>
> typedef struct Xive10RouterClass {
> SysBusDeviceClass parent;
>
> /* XIVE table accessors */
> int (*get_eas)(Xive10Router *xrtr, uint8_t eas_blk, uint32_t eas_idx,
> Xive10EAS *eas);
> int (*get_end)(Xive10Router *xrtr, uint8_t end_blk, uint32_t end_idx,
> Xive10END *end);
> int (*write_end)(Xive10Router *xrtr, uint8_t end_blk, uint32_t end_idx,
> Xive10END *end, uint8_t word_number);
> int (*get_nvp)(Xive10Router *xrtr, uint8_t nvt_blk, uint32_t nvt_idx,
> Xive10NVP *nvt);
> int (*write_nvp)(Xive10Router *xrtr, uint8_t nvt_blk, uint32_t nvt_idx,
> Xive10NVP *nvt, uint8_t word_number);
> XiveTCTX *(*get_tctx)(Xive10Router *xrtr, CPUState *cs);
> uint8_t (*get_block_id)(XiveRouter *xrtr);
> uint32_t (*get_config)(Xive10Router *xrtr);
> } Xive10RouterClass;
>
> Only get_tctx() is common.
>
> The XIVE structures (END, NV*) used by the routing algo have changed a lot.
> Even the presenter has changed, because all the CAM lines have a slightly
> different format.
>
> C.
>
>
--
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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
