On 11/08/15 11:03, Eric Auger wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 03:19 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Commit 0a4377de3056 ("genirq: Introduce irq_set_vcpu_affinity() to
>> target an interrupt to a VCPU") added just what we needed at the
>> lowest level to allow an interrupt to be deactivated by a guest.
>>
>> When such a request reaches the GIC, it knows it doesn't need to
>> perform the deactivation anymore, and can safely leave the guest
>> do its magic. This of course requires additional support in both
>> VFIO and KVM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> index e02592b..a1ca9e6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> @@ -70,6 +70,11 @@ static inline int gic_irq_in_rdist(struct irq_data *d)
>> return gic_irq(d) < 32;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline bool forwarded_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + return d->handler_data != NULL;
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline void __iomem *gic_dist_base(struct irq_data *d)
>> {
>> if (gic_irq_in_rdist(d)) /* SGI+PPI -> SGI_base for this CPU */
>> @@ -231,6 +236,12 @@ static void gic_poke_irq(struct irq_data *d, u32 offset)
>> static void gic_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>> {
>> gic_poke_irq(d, GICD_ICENABLER);
>> + /*
>> + * When masking a forwarded interrupt, make sure it is
>> + * deactivated as well.
> To me it is not straightforward to understand why a forwarded IRQ would
> need to be DIR'ed when masked. This is needed because of the disable_irq
> optimisation, I would add a related comment.
>
The lazy disable_irq is just an optimization.
The real reason is that if we mask an interrupt on the host, it is
because we don't want the guest to process it at all. There is three cases:
1) The interrupt was inactive: no problem
2) The interrupt was active, but not presented to the guest yet: no
problem either. The interrupt will be taken again on unmask.
3) The interrupt was active and presented to the guest: we might get a
double deactivate, which shouldn't be a big deal (but mostly should not
occur at all).
Would something like this make sense?
On a related note, I wonder if we need to mark the interrupt pending if
it is configured as edge. Otherwise, we could loose an interrupt in case
2 (mask, deactivate, unmask, oh look nothing triggers). Thoughts?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
