Hi Marc,
On 27/10/2017 16:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> When the guest issues an affinity change, we need to tell the physical
> ITS that we're now targetting a new vcpu. This is done by extracting
> the current mapping, updating the target, and reapplying the mapping.
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> index c9b1c0967426..42ffb9084bb7 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> @@ -337,11 +337,25 @@ static int vgic_copy_lpi_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 **intid_ptr)
>
> static int update_affinity(struct vgic_irq *irq, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
> irq->target_vcpu = vcpu;
> spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
>
> - return 0;
> + if (irq->hw) {
> + struct its_vlpi_map map;
> +
> + ret = its_get_vlpi(irq->host_irq, &map);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + map.vpe = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe;
> +
> + ret = its_map_vlpi(irq->host_irq, &map);
Do we check somewhere the virtual LPI ID does not exceed the capacity of
the VPT. I fail to find that in the irq-gic-v3-its.c driver.
Also in case the hw part fails, should we still have the irq->target_cpu
set to the new value. In other words shouldn't we first do the hw block
and upon success set the target_vcpu?
Thanks
Eric
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /*
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
