Re: [Xen-devel] Xen/arm: Virtual ITS command queue handling

[Vijay Kilari <vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15/05/15 12:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> Handling of Single vITS and multipl pITS can be made simple.
>>>
>>> All ITS commands except SYNC & INVALL has device id which will
>>> help us to know to which pITS it should be sent.
>>>
>>> SYNC & INVALL can be dropped by Xen on Guest request
>>>  and let Xen append where ever SYNC & INVALL is required.
>>> (Ex; Linux driver adds SYNC for required commands).
>>> With this assumption, all ITS commands are mapped to pITS
>>> and no need of synchronization across pITS
>>
>> You've ignored the second bullet its three sub-bullets, I think.
>
   Why can't we group the batch of commands based on pITS it has
to be sent?.

> Aside ignoring the second bullet it's not possible to drop like that a
> SYNC/INVALL command sent be the guest. How can you decide when a SYNC is
> required or not? Why dropping "optional" SYNC would be fine? The spec
> only says "This command specifies that all actions for the specified
> re-distributor must be completed"...

 If Xen is sending SYNC/INVALL commands to pITS based on the commands
Xen is sending on pITS, there is no harm in ignoring guest commands.

SYNC/INVALL are always depends on previous ITS commands.
IMO, Alone these commands does not have any significance.

>
> Linux is not a good example for respecting the spec. Developers may
> decide to put SYNC differently in new necessary place and we won't be
> able to handle it correctly in Xen (see the vGICv3 re-dist example...).
>
> If we go on one vITS per multiple pITS we would have to send the command
> SYNC/INVALL to every pITS.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel