Hi Christoffer,
On 29/09/15 15:49, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Currently vgic_process_maintenance() processes dealing with a completed
> level-triggered interrupt directly, but we are soon going to reuse this
> logic for level-triggered mapped interrupts with the HW bit set, so
> move this logic into a separate static function.
>
> Probably the most scary part of this commit is convincing yourself that
> the current flow is safe compared to the old one. In the following I
> try to list the changes and why they are harmless:
>
> Move vgic_irq_clear_queued after kvm_notify_acked_irq:
> Harmless because the only potential effect of clearing the queued
> flag wrt. kvm_set_irq is that vgic_update_irq_pending does not set
> the pending bit on the emulated CPU interface or in the
> pending_on_cpu bitmask if the function is called with level=1.
> However, the point of kvm_notify_acked_irq is to call kvm_set_irq
> with level=0, and we set the queued flag again in
> __kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate later on if the level is stil high.
>
> Move vgic_set_lr before kvm_notify_acked_irq:
> Also, harmless because the LR are cpu-local operations and
> kvm_notify_acked only affects the dist
>
> Move vgic_dist_irq_clear_soft_pend after kvm_notify_acked_irq:
> Also harmless because it's just a bit which is cleared and altering
> the line state does not affect this bit.
Mmmh, kvm_set_irq(level=0) will eventually execute (in
vgic_update_irq_pending()):
vgic_dist_irq_clear_level(vcpu, irq_num);
if (!vgic_dist_irq_soft_pend(vcpu, irq_num))
vgic_dist_irq_clear_pending(vcpu, irq_num);
So with the former code we would clear the (dist) pending bit if
soft_pend was set before, while with the newer code we wouldn't.
Is this just still working because Linux guests will never set the
soft_pend bit? Or is this safe because will always clear the pending bit
anyway later on? (my brain is too much jellyfish by now to still work
this dependency out)
Or what do I miss here?
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index 6bd1c9b..fe0e5db 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@ -1322,12 +1322,56 @@ epilog:
> }
> }
>
> +static int process_level_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int lr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> +{
> + int level_pending = 0;
Why is this an int and not a bool? Also see below ...
> +
> + vlr.state = 0;
> + vlr.hwirq = 0;
> + vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> +
> + /*
> + * If the IRQ was EOIed (called from vgic_process_maintenance) or it
> + * went from active to non-active (called from vgic_sync_hwirq) it was
> + * also ACKed and we we therefore assume we can clear the soft pending
> + * state (should it had been set) for this interrupt.
> + *
> + * Note: if the IRQ soft pending state was set after the IRQ was
> + * acked, it actually shouldn't be cleared, but we have no way of
> + * knowing that unless we start trapping ACKs when the soft-pending
> + * state is set.
> + */
> + vgic_dist_irq_clear_soft_pend(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> +
> + /*
> + * Tell the gic to start sampling the line of this interrupt again.
> + */
> + vgic_irq_clear_queued(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> +
> + /* Any additional pending interrupt? */
> + if (vgic_dist_irq_get_level(vcpu, vlr.irq)) {
> + vgic_cpu_irq_set(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> + level_pending = 1;
> + } else {
> + vgic_dist_irq_clear_pending(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> + vgic_cpu_irq_clear(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Despite being EOIed, the LR may not have
> + * been marked as empty.
> + */
> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> +
> + return level_pending;
> +}
> +
> static bool vgic_process_maintenance(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> u32 status = vgic_get_interrupt_status(vcpu);
> struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
> - bool level_pending = false;
> struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> + int level_pending = 0;
Why this change here? Even after 8/8 I don't see any use of values
outside of true/false.
Cheers,
Andre.
>
> kvm_debug("STATUS = %08x\n", status);
>
> @@ -1342,54 +1386,22 @@ static bool vgic_process_maintenance(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> for_each_set_bit(lr, eisr_ptr, vgic->nr_lr) {
> struct vgic_lr vlr = vgic_get_lr(vcpu, lr);
> - WARN_ON(vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, vlr.irq));
>
> - spin_lock(&dist->lock);
> - vgic_irq_clear_queued(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> + WARN_ON(vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, vlr.irq));
> WARN_ON(vlr.state & LR_STATE_MASK);
> - vlr.state = 0;
> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>
> - /*
> - * If the IRQ was EOIed it was also ACKed and we we
> - * therefore assume we can clear the soft pending
> - * state (should it had been set) for this interrupt.
> - *
> - * Note: if the IRQ soft pending state was set after
> - * the IRQ was acked, it actually shouldn't be
> - * cleared, but we have no way of knowing that unless
> - * we start trapping ACKs when the soft-pending state
> - * is set.
> - */
> - vgic_dist_irq_clear_soft_pend(vcpu, vlr.irq);
>
> /*
> * kvm_notify_acked_irq calls kvm_set_irq()
> - * to reset the IRQ level. Need to release the
> - * lock for kvm_set_irq to grab it.
> + * to reset the IRQ level, which grabs the dist->lock
> + * so we call this before taking the dist->lock.
> */
> - spin_unlock(&dist->lock);
> -
> kvm_notify_acked_irq(kvm, 0,
> vlr.irq - VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS);
> - spin_lock(&dist->lock);
> -
> - /* Any additional pending interrupt? */
> - if (vgic_dist_irq_get_level(vcpu, vlr.irq)) {
> - vgic_cpu_irq_set(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> - level_pending = true;
> - } else {
> - vgic_dist_irq_clear_pending(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> - vgic_cpu_irq_clear(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> - }
>
> + spin_lock(&dist->lock);
> + level_pending |= process_level_irq(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> spin_unlock(&dist->lock);
> -
> - /*
> - * Despite being EOIed, the LR may not have
> - * been marked as empty.
> - */
> - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> }
> }
>
>
--
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
