[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59ec07e5-c017-8644-b96f-e87fe600c490@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 20:15:14 +0800
From: Shenming Lu <lushenming@...wei.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>, Neo Jia <cjia@...dia.com>,
<wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>, <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] KVM: arm64: GICv4.1: Restore VLPI's pending
state to physical side
On 2020/12/1 19:50, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-12-01 11:40, Shenming Lu wrote:
>> On 2020/12/1 18:55, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 2020-11-30 07:23, Shenming Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Shenming,
>>>
>>>> We are pondering over this problem these days, but still don't get a
>>>> good solution...
>>>> Could you give us some advice on this?
>>>>
>>>> Or could we move the restoring of the pending states (include the sync
>>>> from guest RAM and the transfer to HW) to the GIC VM state change handler,
>>>> which is completely corresponding to save_pending_tables (more symmetric?)
>>>> and don't expose GICv4...
>>>
>>> What is "the GIC VM state change handler"? Is that a QEMU thing?
>>
>> Yeah, it is a a QEMU thing...
>>
>>> We don't really have that concept in KVM, so I'd appreciate if you could
>>> be a bit more explicit on this.
>>
>> My thought is to add a new interface (to QEMU) for the restoring of
>> the pending states, which is completely corresponding to
>> KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_SAVE_PENDING_TABLES...
>> And it is called from the GIC VM state change handler in QEMU, which
>> is happening after the restoring (call kvm_vgic_v4_set_forwarding())
>> but before the starting (running) of the VFIO device.
>
> Right, that makes sense. I still wonder how much the GIC save/restore
> stuff differs from other architectures that implement similar features,
> such as x86 with VT-D.
I am not familiar with it...
>
> It is obviously too late to change the userspace interface, but I wonder
> whether we missed something at the time.
The interface seems to be really asymmetrical?...
Or is there a possibility that we could know which irq is hw before the VFIO
device calls kvm_vgic_v4_set_forwarding()?
Thanks,
Shenming
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists