On 03/08/2016 19:56, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 03/08/2016 19:48, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Andre, Christoffer,
>>
>> On 03/08/2016 19:18, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 03/08/16 18:11, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 03:57:45PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>>> Currently we register ITS devices upon userland issuing the CTRL_INIT
>>>>> ioctl to mark initialization of the ITS as done.
>>>>> This deviates from the initialization sequence of the existing GIC
>>>>> devices and does not play well with the way QEMU handles things.
>>>>> To be more in line with what we are used to, register the ITS(es) just
>>>>> before the first VCPU is about to run, so in the map_resources() call.
>>>>> This involves iterating through the list of KVM devices and handle each
>>>>> ITS that we find.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> this is based upon next-20160728 plus Christoffer's kvm_device locking
>>>>> fix from today. Please let me know what tree I should base upon and I
>>>>> will rebase.
>>>>> Eric, Christoffer: does that do what you expect? Can QEMU live with that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Andre.
>>>>>
>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 6 +++++
>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h | 6 +++++
>>>>> 3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>>>>> index 07411cf..e677a60 100644
>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>>>>> @@ -1288,13 +1288,13 @@ void vgic_enable_lpis(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> its_sync_lpi_pending_table(vcpu);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> -static int vgic_its_init_its(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its)
>>>>> +static int vgic_register_its_iodev(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct vgic_io_device *iodev = &its->iodev;
>>>>> int ret;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (its->initialized)
>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>> + if (!its->initialized)
>>>>> + return -EBUSY;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(its->vgic_its_base))
>>>>> return -ENXIO;
>>>>> @@ -1311,9 +1311,6 @@ static int vgic_its_init_its(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its)
>>>>> KVM_VGIC_V3_ITS_SIZE, &iodev->dev);
>>>>> mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_lock);
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (!ret)
>>>>> - its->initialized = true;
>>>>> -
>>>>> return ret;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1435,9 +1432,6 @@ static int vgic_its_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
>>>>> if (type != KVM_VGIC_ITS_ADDR_TYPE)
>>>>> return -ENODEV;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (its->initialized)
>>>>> - return -EBUSY;
>>>>> -
>>>>> if (copy_from_user(&addr, uaddr, sizeof(addr)))
>>>>> return -EFAULT;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1453,7 +1447,9 @@ static int vgic_its_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
>>>>> case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CTRL:
>>>>> switch (attr->attr) {
>>>>> case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CTRL_INIT:
>>>>> - return vgic_its_init_its(dev->kvm, its);
>>>>> + its->initialized = true;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>> break;
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -1498,3 +1494,43 @@ int kvm_vgic_register_its_device(void)
>>>>> return kvm_register_device_ops(&kvm_arm_vgic_its_ops,
>>>>> KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_ITS);
>>>>> }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Registers all ITSes with the kvm_io_bus framework.
>>>>> + * To follow the existing VGIC initialization sequence, this has to be
>>>>> + * done as late as possible, just before the first VCPU runs.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +int vgic_register_its_iodevs(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct kvm_device *dev;
>>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->devices_lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + list_for_each_entry(dev, &kvm->devices, vm_node) {
>>>>> + if (dev->ops != &kvm_arm_vgic_its_ops)
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ret = vgic_register_its_iodev(kvm, dev->private);
>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>> + /* Iterate backwards to roll back previous registrations. */
>>>>> + for (dev = list_prev_entry(dev, vm_node);
>>>>> + &dev->vm_node != &kvm->devices;
>>>>> + dev = list_prev_entry(dev, vm_node)) {
>>>>> + struct vgic_its *its = dev->private;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (dev->ops != &kvm_arm_vgic_its_ops)
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + kvm_io_bus_unregister_dev(kvm, KVM_MMIO_BUS,
>>>>> + &its->iodev.dev);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> is the unregister really necessary?
>>>
>>> I was wondering the same, but we do it for the GICv3 redistributors as
>>> well (though that was introduced by the same stupid author).
>>> That being said I would be too happy to remove both these dodgy routines
>>> if we agree that a failure will ultimately lead to a VM teardown and is
>>> thus not needed.
>>
>> Well to me this will lead to a kvm_vcpu_ioctl/KVM_RUN failure. Then the
>> unregistration only happens in kvm_destroy_vm/kvm_io_bus_destroy and
>> this calls iodevice destructor ops which is not implemented for our
>> device so I don't think this can be removed right now.
> hum no I mixed things I think: The destructor is needed if we want to
> remove our io-dev explicit deallocation in vgic and vits. Anyway this
> could be more elegant than what we have now. I can take this in charge
> if confirmed.
>
> sorry for the noise
another trial :-)
so I understand the bus is freed in kvm_io_bus_destroy and our
kvmio_device are freed on vgic/its destruction (and not through the ops)
so I think we can omit the unregistration which, as far as I understand
removes the elt and reallocates a bus with a decremented size.
Stopping here for today before saying other potential wrong things ...
Thanks
Eric
>
> Eric
>>
>> We shall implement this destructor ops first. In the past I attempted to
>> use the destructor (early ages of new vgic) but this crashed. I think
>> this crash should not happen anymore after:
>> e6e3b5a64e5f15ebd569118a9af16bd4165cbd1a
>>
>> I tested the new version with a qemu integration looking similar to
>> other vgic init:
>>
>> Tested-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andre.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->devices_lock);
>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
>>>>> index 0506543..f0d9b2b 100644
>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
>>>>> @@ -289,6 +289,12 @@ int vgic_v3_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>> goto out;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> + ret = vgic_register_its_iodevs(kvm);
>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>> + kvm_err("Unable to register VGIC ITS MMIO regions\n");
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> dist->ready = true;
>>>>>
>>>>> out:
>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
>>>>> index 1d8e21d..6c4625c 100644
>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
>>>>> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ void vgic_v3_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>>> int vgic_v3_probe(const struct gic_kvm_info *info);
>>>>> int vgic_v3_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm);
>>>>> int vgic_register_redist_iodevs(struct kvm *kvm, gpa_t dist_base_address);
>>>>> +int vgic_register_its_iodevs(struct kvm *kvm);
>>>>> bool vgic_has_its(struct kvm *kvm);
>>>>> int kvm_vgic_register_its_device(void);
>>>>> void vgic_enable_lpis(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>>> @@ -140,6 +141,11 @@ static inline int vgic_register_redist_iodevs(struct kvm *kvm,
>>>>> return -ENODEV;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static inline int vgic_register_its_iodevs(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> static inline bool vgic_has_its(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return false;
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.9.0
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise this looks good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Can someone provide a tested-by ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Christoffer
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>>
--
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
