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

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 18:18 +0530, Vijay Kilari wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 17:40 +0530, Vijay Kilari wrote:
> >> > If a guest issues (for example) a MOVI which is not followed by an
> >> > INV/INVALL on native then what would trigger the LPI configuration to be
> >> > applied by the h/w?
> >> >
> >> > If a guest is required to send an INV/INVALL in order for some change to
> >> > take affect and it does not do so then it is buggy, isn't it?
> >>
> >> agreed.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > IOW all Xen needs to do is to propagate any guest initiated INV/INVALL
> >> > as/when it occurs in the command queue. I don't think we need to
> >> > fabricate an additional INV/INVALL while emulating a MOVI.
> >> >
> >> > What am I missing?
> >>
> >> back to point:
> >>
> >> INV has device id so not an issue.
> >> INVALL does not have device id to know pITS to send.
> >> For that reason Xen is expected to insert INVALL at proper
> >> places similar to SYNC and ignore INV/INVALL of guest.
> >
> > Why wouldn't Xen just insert an INVALL in to all relevant pITS in
> > response to an INVALL from the guest?
> 
> If INVALL is sent on all pITS, then we need to wait for all pITS to complete
> the command before we update CREADR of vITS.

Correct, but doesn't that already naturally fall out of any scheme which
maps on vits onto multiple pits? It's not specific to INVALL that we
need to consider the progress of all pITS before updating the vITS.

> >
> > If you are proposing something different then please be explicit by what
> > you mean by "proper places similar to SYNC". Ideally by proposing some
> > new text which I can use in the document.
> 
> If the platform has more than 1 pITS, The ITS commands are mapped
> from vITS to pITS using device ID provided with ITS command.
> 
> However SYNC and INVALL does not have device ID.
> In such case there could be two ways to handle
> 1) SYNC and INVALL of guest will be sent to pITS based on previous ITS 
> commands
>     of guest
> 2) Xen will insert/append SYNC and INVALL to guest ITS commands
> where-ever required and ignore guest
>    SYNC and INVALL commands
> 
> IMO (2) would be better as approach (1) might fail to handle
> scenario where-in guest is sending only SYNC & INVALL commands.

That depends on what "where-ever required" evaluates to. Please be
explicit here.

It sounds like this needs to be something which is handled as a new
chapter on translation, in a subsection dealing with non-device specific
command handling.

Ian.


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