Hi Eric,
On 2020-03-20 11:09, Auger Eric wrote:
Hi Marc,
[...]
It means that userspace will be aware of some form of GICv4.1
details
(e.g., get/set vSGI state at HW level) that KVM has implemented.
Is it something that userspace required to know? I'm open to this
;-)
Not sure we would be obliged to expose fine details. This could be a
generic save/restore device group/attr whose implementation at KVM
level
could differ depending on the version being implemented, no?
What prevents us from hooking this synchronization to the current
behaviour
of KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_SAVE_PENDING_TABLES? After all, this is already
the
point
where we synchronize the KVM view of the pending state with userspace.
Here, it's just a matter of picking the information from some other
place
(i.e. the host's virtual pending table).
agreed
The thing we need though is the guarantee that the guest isn't going
to
get more vLPIs at that stage, as they would be lost. This effectively
assumes that we can also save/restore the state of the signalling
devices,
and I don't know if we're quite there yet.
On QEMU, when KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_SAVE_PENDING_TABLES is called, the VM is
stopped.
See cddafd8f353d ("hw/intc/arm_gicv3_its: Implement state
save/restore")
So I think it should work, no?
The guest being stopped is a good start. But my concern is on the device
side.
If the device is still active (generating interrupts), these interrupts
will
be dropped because the vPE will have been unmapped from the ITS in order
to
clean the ITS caches and make sure the virtual pending table is up to
date.
In turn, restoring the guest may lead to a lockup because we would have
lost
these interrupts. What does QEMU on x86 do in this case?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
