Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> writes: > Hello, > > On 25/07/16 14:39, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> writes: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> On 25/07/16 13:38, David Vrabel wrote: >>>> On 30/06/16 16:56, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >>>>> It may happen that Xen's and Linux's ideas of vCPU id diverge. In >>>>> particular, when we crash on a secondary vCPU we may want to do kdump >>>>> and unlike plain kexec where we do migrate_to_reboot_cpu() we try booting >>>>> on the vCPU which crashed. This doesn't work very well for PVHVM guests as >>>>> we have a number of hypercalls where we pass vCPU id as a parameter. These >>>>> hypercalls either fail or do something unexpected. To solve the issue we >>>>> need to have a mapping between Linux's and Xen's vCPU ids. >>>>> >>>>> This series solves the issue for x86 PVHVM guests. PV guests don't (and >>>>> probably won't) support kdump so I always assume Xen's vCPU id == Linux's >>>>> vCPU id. ARM guests will probably need to get proper mapping once we start >>>>> supporting kexec/kdump there. >>>> >>>> Applied to for-linus-4.8, thanks. >>> >>> It would have been nice to send a ping before applying. This patch >>> series is containing Xen ARM code which has not been acked by Stefano, >>> nor had feedback from ARM side. >>> >>> For instance given that all the hypercalls are representing a "vcpu >>> id" using "uint32_t" it is a bit weird to use "int" to define >>> xen_vcpu_id (see patch #3). >> >> CPU id is usually 'int' in linux and now we pass it to all >> hypercalls as it is. > > Well, we need to differentiate between the internal representation of > the CPU which is based on the boot order and the logical CPU ID. For > instance on ARM, the logical CPU ID may not be contiguous nor 0 for > the first CPU. > > From my understanding, the macros in patch #3 will be used at the last > minute when prepare the hypercall data. IHMO this is very similar to a > logical ID and defined as uint32_t by the hypercall ABI. > > Although, I agree that currently we use the internal CPU id on ARM > which is very unfortunate because this value is based on the order of > the nodes in the device tree. > > One way to abolish it on ARM would be to use the MPIDR (or at least a > part) for the VCPU ID. >
I probably know too little about ARM but it seems that unlike x86 we don't need the knowledge of _other_ vCPU ids before we start them so MPIDR looks very suitable. >> It is a bit more convenient in the mapping I >> introduce as we can set it to a negative value to indicate there is no >> mapping available. I can definitely change that and use something like >> U32_MAX-1 to instead but I'm not sure it is worth it... > > I looked at the definition of cpu_acpi_id on x86 which return > x86_cpu_to_acpiid that has been defined to an uint32_t. > > So you are assuming that it will never be possible to have an ID > > 0x80000000. > > Also, this may not be true on ARM depending how we define the VCPU > mapping. We could decide to use the MPIDR which is in this case may be > considered as "negative". While we're not obliged to have the same type for xen_vcpu_id on all arches I see no point in diverging without a reason. I can do v3 making the mapping uint32 and indicating the missing value as U32_MAX-1 if nobody is against the idea. -- Vitaly _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel