Date:	Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:01:25 +0200
From:	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
To:	Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org>
Cc:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	"kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/9] KVM: arm: vgic: allow dynamic mapping of
 physical/virtual interrupts

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 05:47:53PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 03:13 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 03 2014 at 10:48:52 am BST, Eric Auger <eric.auger@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> On 06/25/2014 11:28 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> In order to be able to feed physical interrupts to a guest, we need
> >>> to be able to establish the virtual-physical mapping between the two
> >>> worlds.
> >>>
> >>> As we try to keep the injection interface simple, find out what the
> >>> physical interrupt is (if any) when we actually build the LR.
> >>>
> >>> The mapping is kept in a rbtree, indexed by virtual interrupts.
> >>
> >> Hi Marc,
> >>
> >> I suspect there is a piece missing here related to bitmap state
> >> management. When using maintenance IRQ, in process_maintenance we cleared
> >> - dist->irq_pending (and new dist->irq_level)
> >> - vcpu->irq_queued
> >>
> >> Now this does not exist anymore for forwarded irqs, when a subsequent
> >> IRQ will be injected, vgic_update_irq_pending will fail in injecting the
> >> IRQ because the states are reflecting the IRQ is still in progress.
> >>
> >> Since I have a modified version of your code, using Christoffer patches
> >> I may have missed some modifications you did but at least on my side I
> >> was forced to add bitmap clearing.
> >>
> >> It is not clear to me where to put that code however. Since user-side
> >> can inject an IRQ while the previous one is not completed at guest and
> >> host level, it cannot be in update_irq_pending - or we shall prevent the
> >> user from injecting fwd IRQs - .
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Christoffer suggested me to put state bitmap reset in
> __kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate where we check whether the LR were consumed. It
> seems to work fine and we do no assumption about user action.
> 

What I said specifically was that we currently don't have to worry about
clearing the active bit or resample the level when we look through the
ELRSR bitmap, because level-triggered interrupts that have been
processed currently always raise a maintenance interrupt.

So my suggestion would be to factor out the "this is some common
housekeeping we have to do for all level-triggered interrupts which have
not been completed on a VCPU interface" from vgic_process_maintenance()
and call this functionality from both vgic_process_maintenance() and
from __kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate().

[...]

> > 
> > Now, it is completely possible that we're missing something here (or
> > actually doing too much).
> > 
> >> In my case (VFIO/IRQFD), by construction I only inject a new forwarded
> >> IRQ when the previous one was completed so I could put it in the irqfd
> >> injection function. But even irqfd is injected through eventfd trigger.
> >> We shall forbid the user-side to trigger that eventfd in place of the
> >> VFIO driver. What do you think?

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean here?

> > 
> > Yup. userspace can't interfere with a forwarded interrupt, that's way
> > too dangerous.
> > 
> >> A question related to guest kill. Cannot it happen the guest sometimes
> >> does not complete the vIRQ before exiting? Currently I observe cases
> >> where when I launch qemu-system after a kill, forwarded irqs do not work
> >> properly. I am not yet sure this is the cause of my problem but just in
> >> case, can the host write into GICV_EOIR in place of guest?
> > 
> > It is quite possible that the interrupt is left active when the guest is
> > killed, which would tend to indicate that we need a way to cleanup
> > behind us. It should be enough to clear the active bit, shouldn't it?
> So in practice this will directly write into the GICC_DIR right? I will
> try this.
> 
Not sure what you mean with "this will directly write into the
GICC_DIR"?  What is 'this' ?

I haven't experimented a lot with this, but I think you need to catch
all forwarded IRQs that may have been in flight when the VM was killed
and use the API to the irqchip to tell it that it's no longer forwarded
and either the cleanup then sits within the specific irqchip logic or
you do some more manual cleanup inside KVM.  I would lean towards the
first option (because the irqchip would always be in charge of
guaranteeting some queiesced state), but we should look at the specific
details of what needs to be done.

-Christoffer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists