On 05/28/2013 07:41:18 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 12:41 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> I believe Alex is staying far away from e-mail on his vacation.
He's
> asked me to fill in for him while he's gone.
>
> The patch itself seems reasonable (though I don't know much about
XICS,
> and do have one question...), but I'll leave it up to
Gleb/Marcelo/Ben
> if it should go in for 3.10 and via which tree. I understand the
> desire to not have an incomplete ABI in a released version, but
Linus
> is already grumbling about how much went into rc3, and you say the
> hcalls aren't currently used... Are they likely to be used in any
> timeframe in which we'd reasonably care about 3.10?
Yes. I'd like to have them in. Their implementation is actually fairly
trivial and they cannot be emulated by qemu if the rest of the XICS is
in the kernel, so it's a problem.
OK. Does it make more sense for you to take it as Paul suggested, or
for Gleb or Marcelo to pick it up directly?
> > + /* These requests don't have real-mode implementations at
> > present */
> > + switch (req) {
> > + case H_XIRR_X:
> > + res = kvmppc_h_xirr(vcpu);
> > + kvmppc_set_gpr(vcpu, 4, res);
> > + kvmppc_set_gpr(vcpu, 5, get_tb());
> > + return rc;
> > + case H_IPOLL:
> > + rc = kvmppc_h_ipoll(vcpu, kvmppc_get_gpr(vcpu, 4));
> > + return rc;
> > + }
> > +
> > /* Check for real mode returning too hard */
> > if (xics->real_mode)
> > return kvmppc_xics_rm_complete(vcpu, req);
>
> Could you explain what's going on here relative to
> kvmppc_xics_rm_complete()? What does "returning too hard" mean, and
> why must rm_action not be checked for these hcalls?
This is related to how we handle some hcalls in real mode as a fast
path. The real-mode stuff cannot handle cases that require for
example a
re-emit of the interrupt, a reject, etc... so in some cases, it
returns
H_TOO_HARD which causes KVM to exit and try to handle the hcall again
in
kernel virtual mode.
When doing so as the result of a XICS hcall, it sets a bit mask of
"tasks" to handle in virtual mode (because it will have already
partially done the operation, it cannot just re-play the whole hcall).
So when real-mode is supported we must not just call the normal
virtual
mode version of the hcalls, we instead go to kvmppc_xics_rm_complete()
to handle those "tasks".
However, for those 2 "missing" hcalls, we have no real mode
implementation at all (we didn't bother, we will do that later if
needed, it's purely a performance issue). So we need to fully handle
them in virtual mode, and we know there will be no "tasks" to handle
in
rm_complete.
Then rm_action should always be 0 for these hcalls, right? So there's
no correctness reason to keep the hcalls in separate switch
statements. You shave off a few cycles checking rm_action, at the cost
of needing to change kvmppc_xics_hcall() if a real-mode version of
these hcalls is ever done.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
