On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:40:10AM -0500, Jintack Lim wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Christoffer Dall
> <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 03:21:06PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 27 2017 at 01:04:56 AM, Jintack Lim <jintack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Now that we maintain the EL1 physical timer register states of VMs,
> >> > update the physical timer interrupt level along with the virtual one.
> >> >
> >> > Note that the emulated EL1 physical timer is not mapped to any hardware
> >> > timer, so we call a proper vgic function.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Jintack Lim <jintack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> >> > index 0f6e935..3b6bd50 100644
> >> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> >> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> >> > @@ -180,6 +180,21 @@ static void kvm_timer_update_mapped_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool new_level,
> >> > WARN_ON(ret);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +static void kvm_timer_update_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool new_level,
> >> > + struct arch_timer_context *timer)
> >> > +{
> >> > + int ret;
> >> > +
> >> > + BUG_ON(!vgic_initialized(vcpu->kvm));
> >>
> >> Although I've added my fair share of BUG_ON() in the code base, I've
> >> since reconsidered my position. If we get in a situation where the vgic
> >> is not initialized, maybe it would be better to just WARN_ON and return
> >> early rather than killing the whole box. Thoughts?
> >>
> >
> > Could we help this series along by saying that since this BUG_ON already
> > exists in the kvm_timer_update_mapped_irq function, then it just
> > preserves functionality and it's up to someone else (me) to remove the
> > BUG_ON from both functions later in life?
> >
>
> Sounds good to me :) Thanks!
>
So just as you thought you were getting off easy...
The reason we now have kvm_timer_update_irq and
kvm_timer_update_mapped_irq is that we have the following two vgic
functions:
kvm_vgic_inject_irq
kvm_vgic_inject_mapped_irq
But the only difference between the two is what they pass
as the mapped_irq argument to vgic_update_irq_pending.
What about if we just had this as a precursor patch:
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
index 6a084cd..91ecf48 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
@@ -175,7 +175,8 @@ static void kvm_timer_update_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool new_level)
timer->irq.level = new_level;
trace_kvm_timer_update_irq(vcpu->vcpu_id, timer->irq.irq,
timer->irq.level);
- ret = kvm_vgic_inject_mapped_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->vcpu_id,
+
+ ret = kvm_vgic_inject_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->vcpu_id,
timer->irq.irq,
timer->irq.level);
WARN_ON(ret);
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
index dea12df..4c87fd0 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
@@ -336,8 +336,7 @@ bool vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq)
}
static int vgic_update_irq_pending(struct kvm *kvm, int cpuid,
- unsigned int intid, bool level,
- bool mapped_irq)
+ unsigned int intid, bool level)
{
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
struct vgic_irq *irq;
@@ -357,11 +356,6 @@ static int vgic_update_irq_pending(struct kvm *kvm, int cpuid,
if (!irq)
return -EINVAL;
- if (irq->hw != mapped_irq) {
- vgic_put_irq(kvm, irq);
- return -EINVAL;
- }
-
spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
if (!vgic_validate_injection(irq, level)) {
@@ -399,13 +393,7 @@ static int vgic_update_irq_pending(struct kvm *kvm, int cpuid,
int kvm_vgic_inject_irq(struct kvm *kvm, int cpuid, unsigned int intid,
bool level)
{
- return vgic_update_irq_pending(kvm, cpuid, intid, level, false);
-}
-
-int kvm_vgic_inject_mapped_irq(struct kvm *kvm, int cpuid, unsigned int intid,
- bool level)
-{
- return vgic_update_irq_pending(kvm, cpuid, intid, level, true);
+ return vgic_update_irq_pending(kvm, cpuid, intid, level);
}
int kvm_vgic_map_phys_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 virt_irq, u32 phys_irq)
That would make this patch simpler. If so, I can send out the above
patch with a proper description.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
