Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] apic: add support for x2APIC mode

[Igor Mammedov]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:30:44 +0700
Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/29/23 21:53, Bui Quang Minh wrote:
> > On 3/28/23 22:58, Bui Quang Minh wrote:  
> >> On 3/27/23 23:49, David Woodhouse wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 23:35 +0700, Bui Quang Minh wrote:  
> >>>> On 3/27/23 23:22, David Woodhouse wrote:  
> >>>>> On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 22:45 +0700, Bui Quang Minh wrote:  
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>>> Maybe I'm misreading the patch, but to me it looks that
> >>>>>>> if (dest == 0xff) apic_get_broadcast_bitmask() bit applies even in
> >>>>>>> x2apic mode? So delivering to the APIC with physical ID 255 will be
> >>>>>>> misinterpreted as a broadcast?  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In case dest == 0xff the second argument to 
> >>>>>> apic_get_broadcast_bitmask
> >>>>>> is set to false which means this is xAPIC broadcast  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, but it *isn't* xAPIC broadcast. It's X2APIC unicast to APIC#255.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you want (although you don't have 'dev') something like this:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static void apic_get_delivery_bitmask(uint32_t *deliver_bitmask,
> >>>>>                                         uint32_t dest, uint8_t 
> >>>>> dest_mode)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>>       APICCommonState *apic_iter;
> >>>>>       int i;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       memset(deliver_bitmask, 0x00, max_apic_words * 
> >>>>> sizeof(uint32_t));
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       /* x2APIC broadcast id for both physical and logical 
> >>>>> (cluster) mode */
> >>>>>       if (dest == 0xffffffff) {
> >>>>>           apic_get_broadcast_bitmask(deliver_bitmask, true);
> >>>>>           return;
> >>>>>       }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       if (dest_mode == 0) {
> >>>>>           apic_find_dest(deliver_bitmask, dest);
> >>>>>           /* Broadcast to xAPIC mode apics */
> >>>>> -        if (dest == 0xff) {
> >>>>> +        if (dest == 0xff && is_x2apic_mode(dev)) {
> >>>>>               apic_get_broadcast_bitmask(deliver_bitmask, false);
> >>>>>           }
> >>>>>       } else {
> >>>>>  
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm, the unicast case is handled in apic_find_dest function, the logic
> >>>> inside the if (dest == 0xff) is for handling the broadcast case only.
> >>>> This is because when dest == 0xff, it can be both a x2APIC unicast and
> >>>> xAPIC broadcast in case we have some CPUs that are in xAPIC and others
> >>>> are in x2APIC.  
> >>>
> >>> Ah! Yes, I see it now.
> >>>
> >>> Shouldn't apic_get_broadcast_bitmask(… true) add *all* APICs to the
> >>> mask, regardless of their mode? An APIC which is still in xAPIC mode
> >>> will only look at the low 8 bits and see 0xFF which it also interprets
> >>> as broadcast? Or is that not how real hardware behaves?  
> >>
> >> This is interesting. Your point looks reasonable to me but I don't 
> >> know how to verify it, I'm trying to write kernel module to test it 
> >> but there are just too many things running on Linux that uses 
> >> interrupt so the system hangs.
> >>
> >> This raises another question: when dest == 0x102 in IPI, does the 
> >> xAPIC mode CPU with APIC ID 0x2 accept the IPI? I can't see this 
> >> stated clearly in the Intel SDM.  
> > 
> > I do some more testing on my hardware, your point is correct when dest 
> > == 0xffffffff, the interrupt is delivered to all APICs regardless of 
> > their mode.  
> 
> To be precisely, it only broadcasts to CPUs in xAPIC mode if the IPI 
> destination mode is physical. In case the destination mode is logical, 
> flat model/cluster model rule applies to determine if the xAPIC CPUs 
> accept the IPI. Wow, this is so complicated :)

It would be nice if you could update apic kvm unit test with your
findings if it doesn't test those variants yet.

> 
> 
> > And when dest == 0x102 in IPI, xAPIC mode CPU with APIC ID 
> > 0x2 also accepts that IPI.  
>