Hi Jassi,
On 11/1/2022 7:01 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 7:12 PM Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/1/2022 2:58 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:35 PM Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/1/2022 9:23 AM, Jassi Brar wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:20 PM Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jassi,
On 10/27/2022 7:33 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 1:59 PM Elliot Berman
<quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> .....
>> +
>> + gunyah-resource-mgr@0 {
>> + compatible = "gunyah-resource-manager-1-0",
"gunyah-resource-manager";
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 3 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, /* TX
full IRQ */
>> + <GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; /* RX
empty IRQ */
>> + reg = <0x00000000 0x00000000>, <0x00000000 0x00000001>;
>> + /* TX, RX cap ids */
>> + };
>>
> All these resources are used only by the mailbox controller driver.
> So, this should be the mailbox controller node, rather than the
> mailbox user.> One option is to load gunyah-resource-manager as a
module that relies
> on the gunyah-mailbox provider. That would also avoid the "Allow
> direct registration to a channel" hack patch.
A message queue to another guest VM wouldn't be known at boot time and
thus couldn't be described on the devicetree.
I think you need to implement of_xlate() ... or please tell me what
exactly you need to specify in the dt.
Dynamically created virtual machines can't be known on the dt, so there
is nothing to specify in the DT. There couldn't be a devicetree node for
the message queue client because that client is only exists once the VM
is created by userspace.
The underlying "physical channel" is the synchronous SMC instruction,
which remains 1 irrespective of the number of mailbox instances
created.
I disagree that the physical channel is the SMC instruction. Regardless
though, there are num_online_cpus() "physical channels" with this
perspective.
So basically you are sharing one resource among users. Why doesn't the
RM request the "smc instruction" channel once and share it among
users?
I suppose in this scenario, a single mailbox channel would represent all
message queues? This would cause Linux to serialize *all* message queue
hypercalls. Sorry, I can only think negative implications.
Error handling needs to move into clients: if a TX message queue becomes
full or an RX message queue becomes empty, then we'll need to return
error back to the client right away. The clients would need to register
for the RTS/RTR interrupts to know when to send/receive messages and
have retry error handling. If the mailbox controller retried for the
clients as currently proposed, then we could get into a scenario where a
message queue could never be ready to send/receive and thus stuck
forever trying to process that message. The effect here would be that
the mailbox controller becomes a wrapper to some SMC instructions that
aren't related at the SMC instruction level.
A single channel would limit performance of SMP systems because only one
core could send/receive a message. There is no such limitation for
message queues to behave like this.
This is just an illusion. If Gunyah can handle multiple calls from a
VM parallely, even with the "bind-client-to-channel" hack you can't
make sure different channels run on different cpu cores. If you are
ok with that, you could simply populate a mailbox controller with N
channels and allocate them in any order the clients ask.
I wanted to make sure I understood the ask here completely. On what
basis is N chosen? Who would be the mailbox clients?
Thanks,
Elliot
