[RFC][PATCH 0/2] reworking cause_ipi and adding global doorbell support

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:34:38 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 11:49 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:31:08 +1100  
> > > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:  
> >   
> > > On Mon, 2017-03-13 at 03:13 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:  
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Just after the previous two fixes, I would like to propose changing
> > > > the way we do doorbell vs interrupt controller IPIs, and add support
> > > > for global doorbells supported by POWER9 in HV mode.
> > > > 
> > > > After this, the platform code knows about doorbells and interrupt
> > > > controller IPIs, rather than they know about each other.    
> > > 
> > > A few things come to mind:
> > > 
> > >  - We don't want to use doorbells under KVM. They are going to turn
> > > into traps and be emulated, slower than using H_IPI, at least on P9.
> > > Even for core only doorbells. I'm not sure how to convey that to the
> > > guest.  
> > 
> > msgsndp will be okay, won't it? Guest just chooses that based on
> > HVMODE (which pseries platform knows is core only).  
> 
> No. It will suck. Because KVM can run each guest thread on a different core,
> the HW won't work, so we have to disable it and trap the instructions & emulate
> them. We really don't want P9 guests to use it under KVM (it's fine under pHyp).

Ah, gotcha.

> > >  - On PP9 DD1 we need a CI load instead of msgsync (a DARN instruction
> > > would do too if it works)  
> > 
> > Yes, Paul pointed this out too. I'll add an alt patch for it. Apparently
> > also msgsync needs lwsync afterwards for DD2.  
> 
> Odd. Ok.
> 
> > >  - Can we get rid of the atomic ops for manipulating the IPI mux ? What
> > > about a cache line per message and just set/clear ? If we clear in the
> > > doorbell handler before we call the respective targets, we shouldn't
> > > "lose" messages no ? As long as the actual handlers "loop" as necessary
> > > of course.  
> > 
> > Yes I think that would work. Good idea. A single cacheline with messages
> > being independently stored bytes within it might work better, so the
> > receiver CPU does not have to go through and load multiple cachelines
> > to check for messages. It could load up to 8 message types with one load.  
> 
> Ok. But we need to make sure we use multiple stores to not lose messages.
> 
> Ie.
> 
>  - Load all
>  - For each byte if set
>     - clear byte
>     - then call handler

Yes. I think that will be okay because we shouldn't get any load-hit-store
issues. I'll do some benchmarking anyway.

Thanks,
Nick