Hello Marc,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 5:54 PM
> To: Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: James Morse <James.Morse@xxxxxxx>; Andre Przywara
> <Andre.Przywara@xxxxxxx>; lushenming@xxxxxxxxxx;
> kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Justin He
> <Justin.He@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc/arm: take care restore order of GICR_* in ITS
> restore
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 10:20:19 +0100,
> Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > When restore GIC/ITS, GICR_CTLR must be restored after GICR_PROPBASER
> > and GICR_PENDBASER. That is important, as both of GICR_PROPBASER and
> > GICR_PENDBASER will fail to be loaded when lpi has enabled yet in
> > GICR_CTLR. Keep the restore order above will avoid that issue.
> > Shout it out at the doc is very helpful that may avoid lots of debug work.
>
> But that's something that is already mandated by the architecture, isn't it?
> See "5.1 LPIs" in the architecture spec:
>
> <quote>
>
> If GICR_PROPBASER is updated when GICR_CTLR.EnableLPIs == 1, the effects
> are UNPREDICTABLE.
>
> [...]
>
> If GICR_PENDBASER is updated when GICR_CTLR.EnableLPIs == 1, the effects
> are UNPREDICTABLE.
>
I think this "UNPREDICTABLE" related with the "physical machine". Am I right?
In virtualization environment, kernel gives the definite answer that we should not enable GICR_CTLR.EnableLPIs before restoring GICR_PROPBASER(GICR_PENDBASER either) when restore GIC ITS in VMM, see [1]. Thus, should we consider the virtualization environment as a special case?
[1] linux/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
static void vgic_mmio_write_propbase(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
gpa_t addr, unsigned int len,
unsigned long val)
{
struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
u64 old_propbaser, propbaser;
/* Storing a value with LPIs already enabled is undefined */
if (vgic_cpu->lpis_enabled)
return;
...
}
Thanks
Jianyong
> </quote>
>
> The point of this documentation is to make it explicit what is *not* covered
> by the architecture. Anything that is in the architecture still applies, and
> shouldn't be overlooked.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
