On 2016/1/11 19:52, Andrew Jones wrote:

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 08:59:38AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 11/01/16 08:45, Shannon Zhao wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 2016/1/9 23:03, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 13:29:56 +0100
Christoffer Dall[off-list ref]  wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 09:36:47PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 02:56:15PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

On 7 January 2016 at 14:49, Shannon Zhao[off-list ref]  wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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?

Using the device attributes seems more suitable, but I don't know if
using GET/SET_DEVICE_ATTR without the actual creation of a device is
acceptable...

There's precedent set by s390 to take only the set/get/has api into a
new context, commit f206165620.

Thanks Andrew. So adding the set/get/has api for only ARM VCPU is 
acceptable? If so, I'll rewrite my patch.

Thanks,
-- 
Shannon