[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <76a7b9cca485dc8157d3be53189eac69@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 09:25:11 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Shenming Lu <lushenming@...wei.com>
Cc: Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com, yuzenghui@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: arm64: GICv4.1: Restore VLPI's pending
state to physical side
On 2021-01-04 08:16, Shenming Lu wrote:
> From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
>
> When setting the forwarding path of a VLPI (switch to the HW mode),
> we could also transfer the pending state from irq->pending_latch to
> VPT (especially in migration, the pending states of VLPIs are restored
> into kvm’s vgic first). And we currently send "INT+VSYNC" to trigger
> a VLPI to pending.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shenming Lu <lushenming@...wei.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v4.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
> b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
> index f211a7c32704..7945d6d09cdd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
> @@ -454,6 +454,18 @@ int kvm_vgic_v4_set_forwarding(struct kvm *kvm,
> int virq,
> irq->host_irq = virq;
> atomic_inc(&map.vpe->vlpi_count);
>
> + /* Transfer pending state */
> + ret = irq_set_irqchip_state(irq->host_irq,
> + IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING,
> + irq->pending_latch);
> + WARN_RATELIMIT(ret, "IRQ %d", irq->host_irq);
Why do this if pending_latch is 0, which is likely to be
the overwhelming case?
> +
> + /*
> + * Let it be pruned from ap_list later and don't bother
> + * the List Register.
> + */
> + irq->pending_latch = false;
What guarantees the pruning? Pruning only happens on vcpu exit,
which means we may have the same interrupt via both the LR and
the stream interface, which I don't believe is legal (it is
like having two LRs holding the same interrupt).
> +
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&its->its_lock);
> return ret;
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists