Hi Eric, On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:48:26 +0200 Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At the moment the KVM VGICv3 only supports a single redistributor > region (whose base address is set through the GICv3 kvm device > KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR/KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST). There, > all the redistributors are laid out contiguously. The size of this > single redistributor region is not set explicitly but instead > induced at a late stage by the number of online vcpus. > > The GIC specification does not mandate all redistributors to be > contiguous. Moreover DT and ACPI were specified so that multiple > redistributors regions can be defined. > > The current interface brings a limitation on QEMU where ARM > virt machine available GPA holes only allowed to assign a > redistributor region fitting a max of 123 vcpus. Overcoming this > limitation would force either to create a new machine or relocate > the single rdist region or allow the allocation of multiple rdist > regions. > > This series enables this last alternative. A new GICv3 KVM device > KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR/KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION allows > to register individual redistributor regions whose size is defined > explicitly. Those rdist regions then are filled by vcpu rdist frames > according to the need. The vgic init and related base address checks > are impacted. I've taken this series for a test run, and noticed that it breaks kvmtool: <quote> maz@sy-borg:~$ ./kvmtool/lkvm run -c 1 -k Image --irqchip=gicv3 # lkvm run -k Image -m 256 -c 1 --name guest-4929 Info: Loaded kernel to 0x80080000 (20126208 bytes) Info: Placing fdt at 0x8fe00000 - 0x8fffffff Info: virtio-mmio.devices=0x200@0x10000:36 Info: virtio-mmio.devices=0x200@0x10200:37 Info: virtio-mmio.devices=0x200@0x10400:38 KVM_RUN failed: No such device or address </quote> Backing out the series results in a working setup. I presume that the changes in the init has resulted in a stricter initialization order that matches the QEMU flow, but that kvmtool doesn't follow. Could you please have a look at this? I'd like to have it in for 4.18, just without regressions... ;-) Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
