On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:23:25PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On 31/03/16 10:27, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 02:04:37AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h | 3 +++
> >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic_mmio.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
> >> index a462e2b..57aea8f 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
> >> @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@
> >> #ifndef __KVM_ARM_VGIC_NEW_H__
> >> #define __KVM_ARM_VGIC_NEW_H__
> >>
> >> +#define PRODUCT_ID_KVM 0x4b /* ASCII code K */
> >> +#define IMPLEMENTER_ARM 0x43b
> >> +
> >> struct vgic_irq *vgic_get_irq(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> u32 intid);
> >> bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq);
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic_mmio.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic_mmio.c
> >> index e1fd17f..e62366e 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic_mmio.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic_mmio.c
> >> @@ -82,9 +82,56 @@ static int vgic_mmio_write_nyi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int vgic_mmio_read_v2_misc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> + struct kvm_io_device *this,
> >> + gpa_t addr, int len, void *val)
> >> +{
> >> + struct vgic_io_device *iodev = container_of(this,
> >> + struct vgic_io_device, dev);
> >> + u32 value;
> >> +
> >> + switch ((addr - iodev->base_addr) & ~3) {
> >> + case 0x0:
> >> + value = vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.enabled ? GICD_ENABLE : 0;
> >> + break;
> >> + case 0x4:
> >> + value = vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.nr_spis + VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS;
> >> + value = (value >> 5) - 1;
> >> + value |= (atomic_read(&vcpu->kvm->online_vcpus) - 1) << 5;
> >> + break;
> >> + case 0x8:
> >> + value = (PRODUCT_ID_KVM << 24) | (IMPLEMENTER_ARM << 0);
> >> + break;
> >> + default:
> >> + return 0;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + write_mask32(value, addr & 3, len, val);
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int vgic_mmio_write_v2_misc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> + struct kvm_io_device *this,
> >> + gpa_t addr, int len, const void *val)
> >> +{
> >> + struct vgic_io_device *iodev = container_of(this,
> >> + struct vgic_io_device, dev);
> >> + /*
> >> + * GICD_TYPER and GICD_IIDR are read-only, the upper three bytes of
> >> + * GICD_CTLR are reserved.
> >> + */
> >> + if (addr - iodev->base_addr >= 1)
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.enabled = (*(u32 *)val) ? true : false;
> >> + /* TODO: is there anything to trigger at this point? */
> >
> > I guess we should actually check if the vgic is enabled in PATH 11, and
> > we should kick all VCPUs (or at least those with something pending) if
> > we went from disabled to enabled?
> >
> > We should probably also check this in the sync function...
> >
> > Or do we enforce this enabled bool somewhere else that I missed?
>
> Good point, I guess in the moment we just rely upon the VGIC being
> enabled very early and never getting disabled.
> So I will introduce checks in kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq and the flush
> function (which is called before entering the guest, I guess this is
> what you meant with the "sync function"?), also kick all (?) VCPUs here
> in case we enable the GIC.
I'm not sure what I meant by the sync function, perhaps I meant queue
function really (I usually don't have troubles telling sync/flush
apart).
In any case, dealing with the enabled setting has consequences pretty
much all over I think.
Side question: Can you EOI an active interrupt even if you disabled the
VGIC? I think the spec only says that the enabled bit prevents the GIC
from forwarding pending interrupts to the CPU interface or something
like that?
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
