[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b4bea7c-7591-8051-7be0-528581f29d10@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 07:00:30 -0700
From: "Baicar, Tyler" <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Cc: christoffer.dall@...aro.org, marc.zyngier@....com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
lenb@...nel.org, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, robert.moore@...el.com,
lv.zheng@...el.com, nkaje@...eaurora.org, zjzhang@...eaurora.org,
mark.rutland@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
eun.taik.lee@...sung.com, sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com,
labbott@...hat.com, shijie.huang@....com, rruigrok@...eaurora.org,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, tn@...ihalf.com, fu.wei@...aro.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bristot@...hat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...ica.org, Suzuki.Poulose@....com, punit.agrawal@....com,
astone@...hat.com, harba@...eaurora.org, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
john.garry@...wei.com, shiju.jose@...wei.com, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 10/10] arm/arm64: KVM: add guest SEA support
Hello James,
On 3/6/2017 3:28 AM, James Morse wrote:
> On 28/02/17 19:43, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
>> On 2/24/2017 3:42 AM, James Morse wrote:
>>> On 21/02/17 21:22, Tyler Baicar wrote:
>>>> Currently external aborts are unsupported by the guest abort
>>>> handling. Add handling for SEAs so that the host kernel reports
>>>> SEAs which occur in the guest kernel.
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
>>>> index b2d57fc..403277b 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
>>>> @@ -602,6 +602,24 @@ static const char *fault_name(unsigned int esr)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> + * Handle Synchronous External Aborts that occur in a guest kernel.
>>>> + */
>>>> +int handle_guest_sea(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if(IS_ENABLED(HAVE_ACPI_APEI_SEA)) {
>>>> + nmi_enter();
>>>> + ghes_notify_sea();
>>>> + nmi_exit();
>>> This nmi stuff was needed for synchronous aborts that may have interrupted
>>> APEI's interrupts-masked code. We want to avoid trying to take the same set of
>>> locks, hence taking the in_nmi() path through APEI. Here we know we interrupted
>>> a guest, so there is no risk that we have interrupted APEI on the host.
>>> ghes_notify_sea() can safely take the normal path.
>> Makes sense, I can remove the nmi_* calls here.
> Just occurs to me: if we do this we need to add the rcu_read_lock() in
> ghes_notify_sea() as its not protected by the rcu/nmi weirdness.
>
True, would you suggest leaving these nmi_* calls or adding the rcu_*
calls? And since that's only needed for this KVM case, shouldn't the
rcu_* calls just replace the nmi_* calls here (outside of ghes_notify_sea)?
Thanks,
Tyler
--
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists