From: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@intel.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3JjbcOhcg==?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
CC: "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add lowest-priority support for vt-d
 posted-interrupts
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add lowest-priority support for vt-d
 posted-interrupts
Thread-Index: AQHRIKFx7uN6i1xR7ke/FgyVZroC0p7CcuHA///okICAATpioIAB5dSAgAX5PfA=
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 01:52:10 +0000
Message-ID: <E959C4978C3B6342920538CF579893F00AEE805D@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1447037208-75615-1-git-send-email-feng.wu@intel.com>
 <20151116190314.GA12245@potion.brq.redhat.com>
 <E959C4978C3B6342920538CF579893F00AEC87EB@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20151209145343.GB2672@potion.brq.redhat.com>
 <E959C4978C3B6342920538CF579893F00AED3C53@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20151211143751.GA28788@potion.brq.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151211143751.GA28788@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 2512
Lines: 56


> -----Original Message-----
> From: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org] On
> Behalf Of Radim Krcmár
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 10:38 PM
> To: Wu, Feng <feng.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com; kvm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add lowest-priority support for vt-d posted-
> interrupts
> 
> 2015-12-10 01:52+0000, Wu, Feng:
> >> From: Radim Krčmář [mailto:rkrcmar@redhat.com]
> >> (Physical xAPIC+x2APIC mode is still somewhat reasonable and xAPIC CPUs
> >>  start with LDR=0, which means that operating system doesn't need to
> >>  utilize mixed mode, as defined by KVM, when switching to x2APIC.)
> >
> > I think you mean Physical xAPIC+Physical x2APIC mode, right? For physical
> > mode, we don't use LDR in any case, do we? So in physical mode, we only
> > use the APIC ID, that is why they can be mixed, is my understanding correct?
> 
> Yes.  (Technically, physical and logical addressing is always active in
> APIC, but xAPIC must have nonzero LDR to accept logical interrupts[1].)
> If all xAPIC LDRs are zero, KVM doesn't enter a "mixed mode" even if
> some are xAPIC and some x2APIC [2].
> 
> 1: Real LAPICs probably do not accept broadcasts on APICs where LDR=0,
>    KVM LAPICs do, but lowest priority broadcast is not allowed anyway,
>    so PI doesn't care.
> 
> 2: KVM allows OS-writeable APIC ID, which complicates things and real
>    hardware probably doesn't allow it because of that ... we'd be saner
>    with RO APIC ID, but it's not that bad.  (And no major OS does it :])
> 
> >>  the system uses cluster xAPIC, OS should set DFR before LDR, which
> >>  doesn't trigger mixed mode either.)
> >
> > Just curious, if the APIC is software disabled and it is in xAPIC mode. OS sets
> > different value for DFR for different APICs, then when OS sets LDR, KVM can
> > trigger mixed flat and cluster mode, right?
> 
> Exactly.
> APICs with zeroed LDR are ignored, so KVM will use the slow-path for
> delivery (= trigger mixed mode) at the moment the first APIC with
> different DFR is configured.

Thanks a lot for your explanation!

Thanks,
Feng

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?