On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 03:21:03PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> Implements kvm_vgic_[set|unset]_forward.
>
> Handle low-level VGIC programming: physical IRQ/guest IRQ mapping,
> list register cleanup, VGIC state machine. Also interacts with
> the irqchip.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> v2 -> v3:
> - on unforward, we do not compute & output the active state anymore.
> This means if the unforward happens while the physical IRQ is
> active, we will not VFIO mask the IRQ while deactiving it. If a
> new physical IRQ hits, the corresponding virtual IRQ might not
> be injected (hence lost) due to VGIC state machine.
>
> bypass rfc v2:
> - use irq_set_vcpu_affinity API
> - use irq_set_irqchip_state instead of chip->irq_eoi
>
> bypass rfc:
> - rename kvm_arch_{set|unset}_forward into
> kvm_vgic_{set|unset}_forward. Remove __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_HALT_GUEST.
> The function is bound to be called by ARM code only.
>
> v4 -> v5:
> - fix arm64 compilation issues, ie. also defines
> __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_HALT_GUEST for arm64
>
> v3 -> v4:
> - code originally located in kvm_vfio_arm.c
> - kvm_arch_vfio_{set|unset}_forward renamed into
> kvm_arch_{set|unset}_forward
> - split into 2 functions (set/unset) since unset does not fail anymore
> - unset can be invoked at whatever time. Extra care is taken to handle
> transition in VGIC state machine, LR cleanup, ...
>
> v2 -> v3:
> - renaming of kvm_arch_set_fwd_state into kvm_arch_vfio_set_forward
> - takes a bool arg instead of kvm_fwd_irq_action enum
> - removal of KVM_VFIO_IRQ_CLEANUP
> - platform device check now happens here
> - more precise errors returned
> - irq_eoi handled externally to this patch (VGIC)
> - correct enable_irq bug done twice
> - reword the commit message
> - correct check of platform_bus_type
> - use raw_spin_lock_irqsave and check the validity of the handler
> ---
> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 6 ++
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 155 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> index 7ef9ce0..409ac0f 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> @@ -363,6 +363,12 @@ int kvm_vgic_unmap_phys_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct irq_phys_map *map);
> bool kvm_vgic_get_phys_irq_active(struct irq_phys_map *map);
> void kvm_vgic_set_phys_irq_active(struct irq_phys_map *map, bool active);
>
> +int kvm_vgic_set_forward(struct kvm *kvm,
> + unsigned int host_irq, unsigned int guest_irq);
> +
> +void kvm_vgic_unset_forward(struct kvm *kvm,
> + unsigned int host_irq, unsigned int guest_irq);
> +
> #define irqchip_in_kernel(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.in_kernel))
> #define vgic_initialized(k) (!!((k)->arch.vgic.nr_cpus))
> #define vgic_ready(k) ((k)->arch.vgic.ready)
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index 03a85b3..b15999a 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@ -2551,3 +2551,152 @@ int kvm_set_msi(struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *e,
> {
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +/**
> + * kvm_vgic_set_forward - Set IRQ forwarding
> + *
> + * @kvm: handle to the VM
> + * @host_irq: physical IRQ number
> + * @guest_irq: virtual IRQ number
> + *
> + * This function is supposed to be called only if the IRQ
> + * is not in progress: ie. not active at GIC level and not
> + * currently under injection in the guest. The physical IRQ must
> + * also be disabled and the guest must have been exited and
when you say the guest you mean all VCPUs, right?
> + * prevented from being re-entered.
> + */
> +int kvm_vgic_set_forward(struct kvm *kvm,
> + unsigned int host_irq,
> + unsigned int guest_irq)
> +{
> + struct irq_phys_map *map = NULL;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, 0);
> + int spi_id = guest_irq + VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS;
> +
> + kvm_debug("%s host_irq=%d guest_irq=%d\n",
> + __func__, host_irq, guest_irq);
> +
> + if (!vcpu)
> + return 0;
> +
> + irq_set_vcpu_affinity(host_irq, vcpu);
why are we hard-coding this to vcpu 0 ?
missing white space before the code block. Where does the code block
belong exactly?
> + /*
> + * next physical IRQ will be be handled as forwarded
what do you mean with 'next' here?
> + * by the host (priority drop only)
> + */
> +
> + map = kvm_vgic_map_phys_irq(vcpu, spi_id, host_irq, false);
> + /*
> + * next guest_irq injection will be considered as
> + * forwarded and next flush will program LR
> + * without maintenance IRQ but with HW bit set
> + */
also here, I don't understand what you mean by next.
Perhaps these comments were supposed to come before the function calls?
> + return !map;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * kvm_vgic_unset_forward - Unset IRQ forwarding
> + *
> + * @kvm: handle to the VM
> + * @host_irq: physical IRQ number
> + * @guest_irq: virtual IRQ number
> + *
> + * This function must be called when the host_irq is disabled
> + * and guest has been exited and prevented from being re-entered.
> + *
extra white space here
> + */
> +void kvm_vgic_unset_forward(struct kvm *kvm,
> + unsigned int host_irq,
> + unsigned int guest_irq)
> +{
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, 0);
> + struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
> + struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
> + int ret, lr;
> + struct vgic_lr vlr;
> + int spi_id = guest_irq + VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS;
> + bool queued = false, needs_deactivate = true;
> + struct irq_phys_map *map;
> + bool active;
> +
> + kvm_debug("%s host_irq=%d guest_irq=%d\n",
> + __func__, host_irq, guest_irq);
> +
> + spin_lock(&dist->lock);
> +
> + irq_get_irqchip_state(host_irq, IRQCHIP_STATE_ACTIVE, &active);
> +
> + if (!vcpu)
> + goto out;
> +
> + map = vgic_irq_map_search(vcpu, spi_id);
> + BUG_ON(!map);
> + ret = kvm_vgic_unmap_phys_irq(vcpu, map);
> + BUG_ON(ret);
> + /*
> + * subsequent update_irq_pending or flush will handle this
> + * irq as not forwarded
> + */
missing white space before this comment block as well, also here with
'subsequent' do you mean "At this point" ?
> + if (likely(!(active))) {
> + /*
> + * the IRQ was not active. let's simply prepare the states
> + * for subsequent non forwarded injection.
> + */
> + vgic_dist_irq_clear_level(vcpu, spi_id);
> + vgic_dist_irq_clear_pending(vcpu, spi_id);
> + vgic_irq_clear_queued(vcpu, spi_id);
> + needs_deactivate = false;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* is there any list register with valid state? */
> + lr = vgic_cpu->vgic_irq_lr_map[spi_id];
> + if (lr != LR_EMPTY) {
> + vlr = vgic_get_lr(vcpu, lr);
> + if (vlr.state & LR_STATE_MASK)
> + queued = true;
> + }
> +
> + if (!queued) {
> + vgic_irq_clear_queued(vcpu, spi_id);
> + if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, spi_id)) {
> + /*
> + * IRQ is injected but not yet queued. LR will be
> + * written with EOI_INT and process_maintenance will
> + * reset the states: queued, level(resampler). Pending
> + * will be reset on flush.
> + */
> + vgic_dist_irq_set_level(vcpu, spi_id);
so this is all only valid for level-triggered interrupts? Do we check
this somewhere along the call path?
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * We are somewhere before the update_irq_pending.
> + * we can't be sure the virtual IRQ will ever be
> + * injected (due to previous disable_irq).
I don't understand this. Do we somehow know at this point that there is
a pending IRQ to inject as a virtual IRQ?
> + * Let's simply clear the level which was not correctly
> + * modelled in forwarded state.
> + */
> + vgic_dist_irq_clear_level(vcpu, spi_id);
> + }
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * the virtual IRQ is queued and a valid LR exists, let's patch it so
> + * that when EOI happens a maintenance IRQ gets triggered
> + */
> + vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> + vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> +
> + vgic_dist_irq_set_level(vcpu, spi_id);
> + vgic_dist_irq_set_pending(vcpu, spi_id);
how do you know this is the case? couldn't it be active in the LR?
> + vgic_irq_set_queued(vcpu, spi_id);
> + /* The maintenance IRQ will reset all states above */
then why do we bother setting them to anything here?
> +
> +out:
> + irq_set_irqchip_state(host_irq, IRQCHIP_STATE_ACTIVE, false);
> + irq_set_vcpu_affinity(host_irq, NULL);
> + /* next occurrence will be deactivated by the host */
I'm beginning to understand what you mean by 'next' here.
Can you make it more explicit by saying "After this function returns, a
physical IRQ will be..." ?
> +
> + spin_unlock(&dist->lock);
> +}
> +
> --
> 1.9.1
>
Thanks,
-Christoffer
--
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
