From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
Jintack Lim <jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
linux@armlinux.org.uk,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"Andre Przywara" <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
"KVM General" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
"lkml - Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 06/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Update the physical timer interrupt level
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:17:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <faff705e-78a9-d3ae-b09b-d6f5824b98d9@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170201100716.GC6226@cbox>
On 01/02/17 10:07, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> 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@linaro.org> 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@cs.columbia.edu> 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@cs.columbia.edu>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 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.
Indeed. And while you're at it, rename vgic_update_irq_pending to
kvm_vgic_inject_irq, as I don't think we need this simple stub?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-01 10:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-27 1:04 [RFC v2 00/10] Provide the EL1 physical timer to the VM Jintack Lim
2017-01-27 1:04 ` [RFC v2 01/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Abstract virtual timer context into separate structure Jintack Lim
2017-01-29 11:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-27 1:04 ` [RFC v2 02/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Move cntvoff to each timer context Jintack Lim
2017-01-29 11:54 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 14:45 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-01-30 14:51 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 17:40 ` Jintack Lim
2017-01-30 17:58 ` Jintack Lim
2017-01-30 18:05 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 18:45 ` Jintack Lim
2017-01-27 1:04 ` [RFC v2 03/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Decouple kvm timer functions from virtual timer Jintack Lim
2017-01-29 12:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 17:17 ` Jintack Lim
2017-01-30 14:49 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-01-30 17:18 ` Jintack Lim
2017-01-27 1:04 ` [RFC v2 04/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Add the EL1 physical timer context Jintack Lim
2017-01-27 1:04 ` [RFC v2 05/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Initialize the emulated EL1 physical timer Jintack Lim
2017-01-29 12:07 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 14:58 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-01-30 17:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 19:04 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-02-01 10:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-27 1:04 ` [RFC v2 06/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Update the physical timer interrupt level Jintack Lim
2017-01-29 15:21 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 15:02 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-01-30 17:50 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 18:41 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-01-30 18:48 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 19:06 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-01-31 17:00 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-02-01 8:02 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-02-01 8:04 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-02-01 8:40 ` Jintack Lim
2017-02-01 10:07 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-02-01 10:17 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2017-02-01 10:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-27 1:04 ` [RFC v2 07/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Set a background timer to the earliest timer expiration Jintack Lim
2017-01-27 1:04 ` [RFC v2 08/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Set up a background timer for the physical timer emulation Jintack Lim
2017-01-27 1:04 ` [RFC v2 09/10] KVM: arm64: Add the EL1 physical timer access handler Jintack Lim
2017-01-27 1:05 ` [RFC v2 10/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Emulate the EL1 phys timer register access Jintack Lim
2017-01-29 15:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 17:08 ` Jintack Lim
2017-01-30 17:26 ` Peter Maydell
2017-01-30 17:35 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 17:38 ` Jintack Lim
2017-01-29 15:55 ` [RFC v2 00/10] Provide the EL1 physical timer to the VM Marc Zyngier
2017-01-30 19:02 ` Jintack Lim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=faff705e-78a9-d3ae-b09b-d6f5824b98d9@arm.com \
--to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=jintack@cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®