[PATCH v4 15/19] arm/arm64: KVM: add virtual GICv3 distributor emulation

[Christoffer Dall]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 05:06:09PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 02/12/14 16:24, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > Hej Christoffer,
> > 
> > On 30/11/14 08:30, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 03:24:11PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >>> Hej Christoffer,
> >>>
> >>> On 25/11/14 10:41, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>>> Hi Andre,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:00:46PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +     if (!is_in_range(mmio->phys_addr, mmio->len, rdbase,
> >>>>>>> +         GIC_V3_REDIST_SIZE * nrcpus))
> >>>>>>> +             return false;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Did you think more about the contiguous allocation issue here or can you
> >>>>>> give me a pointer to the requirement in the spec?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 5.4.1 Re-Distributor Addressing
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 5.4.1 talks about the pages within a single re-distributor having
> >>>> to be contiguous, not all the re-deistributor regions having to be
> >>>> contiguous, right?
> >>>
> >>> Ah yes, you are right. But I still think it does not matter:
> >>> 1) We are "implementing" the GICv3. So as the spec does not forbid this,
> >>> we just state that the redistributor register maps for each VCPU are
> >>> contiguous. Also we create the FDT accordingly. I will add a comment in
> >>> the documentation to state this.
> >>>
> >>> 2) The kernel's GICv3 DT bindings assume this allocation is the default.
> >>> Although Marc added bindings to work around this (stride), it seems much
> >>> more logical to me to not use it.
> >>
> >> I don't disagree (and never have) with the fact that it is up to us to
> >> decide.
> >>
> >> My original question, which we haven't talked about yet, is if it is
> >> *reasonable* to assume that all re-distributor regions will always be
> >> contiguous?
> >>
> >> How will you handle VCPU hotplug for example?
> > 
> > As kvmtool does not support hotplug, I haven't thought about this yet.
> > To me it looks like userland should just use maxcpus for the allocation.
> > If I get the current QEMU code right, there is room for 127 GICv3 VCPUs
> > (2*64K per VCPU + 64K for the distributor in 16M space) at the moment.
> > Kvmtool uses a different mapping, which allows to share 1G with virtio,
> > so the limit is around 8000ish VCPUs here.
> > Are there any issues with changing the QEMU virt mapping later?
> > Migration, maybe?
> > If the UART, the RTC and the virtio regions are moved more towards the
> > beginning of the 256MB PCI mapping, then there should be space for a bit
> > less than 1024 VCPUs, if I get this right.
> > 
> >> Where in the guest
> >> physical memory map of our various virt machines should these regions
> >> sit so that we can allocate anough re-distributors for VCPUs etc.?
> > 
> > Various? Are there other mappings than those described in hw/arm/virt.c?
> > 
> >> I just want to make sure we're not limiting ourselves by some amount of
> >> functionality or ABI (redistributor base addresses) that will be hard to
> >> expand in the future.
> > 
> > If we are flexible with the mapping at VM creation time, QEMU could just
> > use a mapping depending on max_cpus:
> > < 128 VCPUs: use the current mapping
> > 128 <= x < 1020: use a more compressed mapping
> >> = 1020: map the redistributor somewhere above 4 GB
> > 
> > As the device tree binding for GICv3 just supports a stride value, we
> > don't have any other real options beside this, right? So how I see this,
> > a contiguous mapping (with possible holes) is the only way.
> 
> Not really. The GICv3 binding definitely supports having several regions
> for the redistributors (see the binding documentation). This allows for
> the pathological case where you have N regions for N CPUs. Not that we
> ever want to go there, really.
> 
What are your thoughts on mapping all of the redistributor regions in
one consecutive guest phys address space chunk?  Am I making an issue
out of nothing?

-Christoffer