[PATCH v7 19/19] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device

[Marc Zyngier]

On 16/12/15 08:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2015/12/16 15:31, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>>>>>>> But in this case, you're returning an error if it is *not* initialized.
>>>>>>>> I understand that in that case you cannot return an interrupt number (-1
>>>>>>>> would be weird), but returning -EBUSY feels even more weird.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd settle for -ENOXIO, or something similar. Anyone having a better idea?
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ENXIO or ENODEV would be my choice too, and add that to the
>>>> Documentation clearly describing when this error code is used.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, why do you loop over all VCPUS to set the same value when
>>>> you can't do anything per VCPU anyway?  It seems to me it's either a
>>>> per-VM property (that you can store on the VM data structure) or it's a
>>>> true per-VCPU property?
>> This is a per-VCPU property. PMU interrupt could be PPI or SPI. For PPI
>> the interrupt numbers are same for each vcpu, while for SPI they are
>> different, so it needs to set them separately. I planned to support both
>> PPI and SPI. I think I should add support for SPI at this moment and let
>> users (QEMU) to set these interrupts for each one.
> 
> How about below vPMU Documentation?
> 
> ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU)
> ===========================================
> 
> Device types supported:
>   KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3         ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3
> 
> Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API.
> 
> Groups:
>   KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ
>   Attributes:
>     The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values:
>     bits:     | 63 .... 32 | 31 .... 0 |
>     values:   | vcpu_index |  irq_num  |
>     The irq_num describes 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.
> 
>   Errors:
>     -ENXIO: Getting or setting this attribute is not yet supported
>     -ENODEV: Getting the PMU overflow interrupt number while it's not set
>     -EBUSY: The PMU overflow interrupt is already set
>     -EINVAL: Invalid vcpu_index or irq_num supplied
> 
> 

Let's add at least one comment that forbids two vcpus from getting the
same SPI. This is too common a mistake that we see in actual SoCs, and I
don't want to see it replicated in VMs...

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...