[PATCH v8 20/20] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device
From: Shannon Zhao <hidden>
Date: 2016-01-11 08:45:05
Also in:
kvm, kvmarm
On 2016/1/9 23:03, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:29:56 +0100 Christoffer Dall [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 09:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:quoted
quoted
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 02:56:15PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:quoted
quoted
On 7 January 2016 at 14:49, Shannon Zhao [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ +Groups: + KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ + Attributes: + The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes one value: + bits: | 63 .... 32 | 31 .... 0 | + values: | reserved | vcpu_index | + A value describing the PMU overflow interrupt number for the specified + vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one VM the + interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. As a PPI, the interrupt number is + same for all vcpus, while as a SPI it must be different for each vcpu.I see we're using vcpu_index rather than MPIDR affinity value for specifying which CPU we're configuring. Is this in line with our planned API for GICv3 configuration?Here vcpu_index is used to indexing the vCPU, no special use.Yes, but you can identify the CPU by index, or by its MPIDR. We had a discussion about which was the best way for doing the VGIC API, and I can't remember which way round we ended up going for. Whichever we chose, we should do the same thing here.I think we should start up a new discussion on this. My understanding, after a chat with Igor, who was involved in the untangling of vcpu-id and apic-id for x86, is that using vcpu-id is preferred, unless of course the device expects an apic-id/mpidr, in which case there's no reason to translate it on both sides.I'm fairly strongly convinced that we should use the full 32-bit compressed MPIDR for everything ARM related going forward, as this will cover any case required and leverages and architecturally defined way of uniquely identifying a (v)CPU.+1. vcpu_ids, indexes or any other constructs are just a bunch of KVM-specific definitions that do not describe the VM from an architecture PoV. In contrast, the MPIDR is guaranteed to be unique stable, and identifies a given (v)CPU. As for the PMU: either 1) we instantiate it together with the CPU (with a new capability/feature),
So spare some bits(e.g. 10 bits) of the features array to pass the PMU irq number or add KVM_SET/GET_DEVICE_ATTR for vcpu ioctl? Thanks, -- Shannon