On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:50:06AM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2025-02-20T16:17:33+08:00, xiangwencheng <xiangwencheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> From: "Andrew Jones"<ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 03:12:58PM +0800, xiangwencheng wrote:
> >> > In kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking it will enable guest external interrupt, which
> >
> >> > means wirting to VS_FILE will cause an interrupt. And the interrupt handler
> >
> >> > hgei_interrupt which is setted in aia_hgei_init will finally call kvm_vcpu_kick
> >
> >> > to wake up vCPU.
>
> (Configure your mail client, so it doesn't add a newline between each
> quoted line when replying.)
>
> >> > So I still think is not necessary to call another kvm_vcpu_kick after writing to
> >> > VS_FILE.
>
> So the kick wasn't there to mask some other bug, thanks.
>
> >> Right, we don't need anything since hgei_interrupt() kicks for us, but if
> >> we do
> >>
> >> @@ -973,8 +973,8 @@ int kvm_riscv_vcpu_aia_imsic_inject(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> read_lock_irqsave(&imsic->vsfile_lock, flags);
> >>
> >> if (imsic->vsfile_cpu >= 0) {
> >> + kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu);
> >> writel(iid, imsic->vsfile_va + IMSIC_MMIO_SETIPNUM_LE);
> >> - kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> >> } else {
> >> eix = &imsic->swfile->eix[iid / BITS_PER_TYPE(u64)];
> >> set_bit(iid & (BITS_PER_TYPE(u64) - 1), eix->eip);
> >>
> >> then we should be able to avoid taking a host interrupt.
>
> The wakeup is asynchronous, and this would practically never avoid the
> host interrupt, but we'd do extra pointless work...
> I think it's much better just with the write. (The wakeup would again
> make KVM look like it has a bug elsewhere.)
Ah yes, the wakeup is asynchronous. Just dropping the kick is the right
way to go then.
Thanks,
drew
