[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] xen/riscv: imsic_init() implementation


  • To: Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 12:21:34 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xxxxxxx>, Bob Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@xxxxxxxxx>, Connor Davis <connojdavis@xxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Romain Caritey <Romain.Caritey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 10:21:56 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 26.05.2025 20:44, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> On 5/22/25 4:46 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 21.05.2025 18:03, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> +    /* Allocate MMIO resource array */
>>> +    imsic_cfg.mmios = xzalloc_array(struct imsic_mmios, nr_mmios);
>> How large can this and ...
>>
>>> +    if ( !imsic_cfg.mmios )
>>> +    {
>>> +        rc = -ENOMEM;
>>> +        goto imsic_init_err;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    imsic_cfg.msi = xzalloc_array(struct imsic_msi, nr_parent_irqs);
>> ... this array grow (in principle)?
> 
> Roughly speaking, this is the number of processors. The highests amount of 
> processors
> on the market I saw it was 32. But it was over a year ago when I last checked 
> this.

Unless there's an architectural limit, I don't think it's a good idea to
take as reference what's available at present. But yes, ...

>>   I think you're aware that in principle
>> new code is expected to use xvmalloc() and friends unless there are specific
>> reasons speaking against that.
> 
> Oh, missed 'v'...

... adding the missing 'v' will take care of my concern. Provided of
course this isn't running to early for vmalloc() to be usable just yet.

>>> +    if ( !imsic_cfg.msi )
>>> +    {
>>> +        rc = -ENOMEM;
>>> +        goto imsic_init_err;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    /* Check MMIO register sets */
>>> +    for ( unsigned int i = 0; i < nr_mmios; i++ )
>>> +    {
>>> +        if ( !alloc_cpumask_var(&imsic_cfg.mmios[i].cpus) )
>>> +        {
>>> +            rc = -ENOMEM;
>>> +            goto imsic_init_err;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +        rc = dt_device_get_address(node, i, &imsic_cfg.mmios[i].base_addr,
>>> +                                   &imsic_cfg.mmios[i].size);
>>> +        if ( rc )
>>> +        {
>>> +            printk(XENLOG_ERR "%s: unable to parse MMIO regset %u\n",
>>> +                   node->name, i);
>>> +            goto imsic_init_err;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +        base_addr = imsic_cfg.mmios[i].base_addr;
>>> +        base_addr &= ~(BIT(imsic_cfg.guest_index_bits +
>>> +                           imsic_cfg.hart_index_bits +
>>> +                           IMSIC_MMIO_PAGE_SHIFT, UL) - 1);
>>> +        base_addr &= ~((BIT(imsic_cfg.group_index_bits, UL) - 1) <<
>>> +                       imsic_cfg.group_index_shift);
>>> +        if ( base_addr != imsic_cfg.base_addr )
>>> +        {
>>> +            rc = -EINVAL;
>>> +            printk(XENLOG_ERR "%s: address mismatch for regset %u\n",
>>> +                   node->name, i);
>>> +            goto imsic_init_err;
>>> +        }
>> Maybe just for my own understanding: There's no similar check for the
>> sizes to match / be consistent wanted / needed?
> 
> If you are speaking about imsic_cfg.mmios[i].size then it depends fully on 
> h/w will
> provide, IMO.
> So I don't what is possible range for imsic_cfg.mmios[i].size.

Well, all I can say is that's it feels odd that you sanity check base_addr
but permit effectively any size.

>>> @@ -18,6 +19,18 @@ static inline unsigned long cpuid_to_hartid(unsigned 
>>> long cpuid)
>>>       return pcpu_info[cpuid].hart_id;
>>>   }
>>>   
>>> +static inline unsigned long hartid_to_cpuid(unsigned long hartid)
>>> +{
>>> +    for ( unsigned int cpuid = 0; cpuid < ARRAY_SIZE(pcpu_info); cpuid++ )
>>> +    {
>>> +        if ( hartid == cpuid_to_hartid(cpuid) )
>>> +            return cpuid;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    /* hartid isn't valid for some reason */
>>> +    return NR_CPUS;
>>> +}
>> Considering the values being returned, why's the function's return type
>> "unsigned long"?
> 
> mhartid register has MXLEN length, so theoretically we could have from 0 to 
> MXLEN-1
> Harts and so we could have the same amount of Xen's CPUIDs. and MXLEN is 32 
> for RV32
> and MXLEN is 64 for RV64.

Yet the return value here is always constrained by NR_CPUS, isn't it?

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.