On Tuesday 05 September 2017 03:54 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2017-09-05 11:43, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday 05 September 2017 02:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> On 2017-09-05 10:59, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 05 September 2017 11:56 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>> On 2017-08-30 12:34, 'Lokesh Vutla' via Jailhouse wrote: >>>>>> Even though 'struct sgi' already supports for passing affinity levels, >>>>>> gic_handle_sgir_write() looks only for target fields and triggers sgis >>>>>> to its respective targets. This will fail in case of armv8 with affinity >>>>>> routing enabled. So parse all the affinity levels in sgi before sending >>>>>> sgi. >>>>>> >>>>>> Suggested-by: Nikhil Devshatwar <[email protected]> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikhil Devshatwar <[email protected]> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <[email protected]> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c >>>>>> b/hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c >>>>>> index 2019342..64c081d 100644 >>>>>> --- a/hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c >>>>>> +++ b/hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c >>>>>> @@ -132,6 +132,7 @@ void gic_handle_sgir_write(struct sgi *sgi, bool >>>>>> virt_input) >>>>>> struct per_cpu *cpu_data = this_cpu_data(); >>>>>> unsigned long targets = sgi->targets; >>>>>> unsigned int cpu; >>>>>> + u64 mpidr, clst, sgi_clst, core; >>>>> >>>>> Let's write this out: cluster. >>>> >>>> okay. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> if (sgi->routing_mode == 2) { >>>>>> /* Route to the caller itself */ >>>>>> @@ -139,14 +140,23 @@ void gic_handle_sgir_write(struct sgi *sgi, bool >>>>>> virt_input) >>>>>> sgi->targets = (1 << cpu_data->cpu_id); >>>>>> } else { >>>>>> sgi->targets = 0; >>>>>> + sgi_clst = (u64)sgi->aff3 << MPIDR_LEVEL_SHIFT(3) | >>>>>> + (u64)sgi->aff2 << MPIDR_LEVEL_SHIFT(2) | >>>>>> + (u64)sgi->aff1 << MPIDR_LEVEL_SHIFT(1); >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if we shouldn't refactor the sgi structure and encode the >>>>> cluster information in it via a single field that is encoded like mpidr. >>>>> That may save us from juggling with the aff1..3 fields all the time. >>>> >>>> After think a bit, I do not see any issue replacing aff[123] with >>>> cluster_id and store the value as "mpidr && ~0xffUL"? Will try to make >>>> changes and repost the entire series. >>> >>> Better use MPIDR_CPUID_MASK - it filters the right bits per architecture. >> >> This MASK include aff0 value as well. I guess the idea here is to just >> pass cluster id and aff0 value gets passed via targets field. > > Right. Then reduce that mask by aff0 but please avoid including anything > except aff1..3.
Hmm.. instead I will create a new MPIDR_CLUSTERID_MASK. CPUID_MASK is already used in other places and that functionality should not be affected. Thanks and regards, Lokesh > > Jan > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jailhouse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
