On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:31:48 +0100,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09/10/21 04:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Move the put and reload of the vGIC out of the block/unblock callbacks
> > and into a dedicated WFI helper. Functionally, this is nearly a nop as
> > the block hook is called at the very beginning of kvm_vcpu_block(), and
> > the only code in kvm_vcpu_block() after the unblock hook is to update the
> > halt-polling controls, i.e. can only affect the next WFI.
> >
> > Back when the arch (un)blocking hooks were added by commits 3217f7c25bca
> > ("KVM: Add kvm_arch_vcpu_{un}blocking callbacks) and d35268da6687
> > ("arm/arm64: KVM: arch_timer: Only schedule soft timer on vcpu_block"),
> > the hooks were invoked only when KVM was about to "block", i.e. schedule
> > out the vCPU. The use case at the time was to schedule a timer in the
> > host based on the earliest timer in the guest in order to wake the
> > blocking vCPU when the emulated guest timer fired. Commit accb99bcd0ca
> > ("KVM: arm/arm64: Simplify bg_timer programming") reworked the timer
> > logic to be even more precise, by waiting until the vCPU was actually
> > scheduled out, and so move the timer logic from the (un)blocking hooks to
> > vcpu_load/put.
> >
> > In the meantime, the hooks gained usage for enabling vGIC v4 doorbells in
> > commit df9ba95993b9 ("KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Use the doorbell interrupt
> > as an unblocking source"), and added related logic for the VMCR in commit
> > 5eeaf10eec39 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Sync ICH_VMCR_EL2 back when about to block").
> >
> > Finally, commit 07ab0f8d9a12 ("KVM: Call kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking early
> > into the blocking sequence") hoisted the (un)blocking hooks so that they
> > wrapped KVM's halt-polling logic in addition to the core "block" logic.
> >
> > In other words, the original need for arch hooks to take action _only_
> > in the block path is long since gone.
> >
> > Cc: Oliver Upton <oupton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This needs a word on why kvm_psci_vcpu_suspend does not need the
> hooks. Or it needs to be changed to also use kvm_vcpu_wfi in the PSCI
> code, I don't know.
>
> Marc, can you review and/or advise?
I was looking at that over the weekend, and that's a pre-existing
bug. I would have addressed it independently, but it looks like you
already have queued the patch.
I guess I'll have to revisit this once the whole thing lands
somewhere.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
