From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Shenming Lu <lushenming@huawei.com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>, Neo Jia <cjia@nvidia.com>,
wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Plumb get_irqchip_state VLPI callback
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 08:08:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e01d8bf87ef42bda3f3ec117e474d103@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7bc7e428-cfd5-6171-dc1e-4be097c46690@huawei.com>
On 2020-11-24 07:38, Shenming Lu wrote:
> On 2020/11/23 17:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 2020-11-23 06:54, Shenming Lu wrote:
>>> From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Up to now, the irq_get_irqchip_state() callback of its_irq_chip
>>> leaves unimplemented since there is no architectural way to get
>>> the VLPI's pending state before GICv4.1. Yeah, there has one in
>>> v4.1 for VLPIs.
>>>
>>> With GICv4.1, after unmapping the vPE, which cleans and invalidates
>>> any caching of the VPT, we can get the VLPI's pending state by
>>
>> This is a crucial note: without this unmapping and invalidation,
>> the pending bits are not generally accessible (they could be cached
>> in a GIC private structure, cache or otherwise).
>>
>>> peeking at the VPT. So we implement the irq_get_irqchip_state()
>>> callback of its_irq_chip to do it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shenming Lu <lushenming@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c | 38
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>>> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>>> index 0fec31931e11..287003cacac7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>>> @@ -1695,6 +1695,43 @@ static void its_irq_compose_msi_msg(struct
>>> irq_data *d, struct msi_msg *msg)
>>> iommu_dma_compose_msi_msg(irq_data_get_msi_desc(d), msg);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static bool its_peek_vpt(struct its_vpe *vpe, irq_hw_number_t hwirq)
>>> +{
>>> + int mask = hwirq % BITS_PER_BYTE;
>>
>> nit: this isn't a mask, but a shift instead. BIT(hwirq % BPB) would
>> give
>> you a mask.
>
> Ok, I will correct it.
>
>>
>>> + void *va;
>>> + u8 *pt;
>>> +
>>> + va = page_address(vpe->vpt_page);
>>> + pt = va + hwirq / BITS_PER_BYTE;
>>> +
>>> + return !!(*pt & (1U << mask));
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int its_irq_get_irqchip_state(struct irq_data *d,
>>> + enum irqchip_irq_state which, bool *val)
>>> +{
>>> + struct its_device *its_dev = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>>> + struct its_vlpi_map *map = get_vlpi_map(d);
>>> +
>>> + if (which != IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + /* not intended for physical LPI's pending state */
>>> + if (!map)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * In GICv4.1, a VMAPP with {V,Alloc}=={0,1} cleans and
>>> invalidates
>>> + * any caching of the VPT associated with the vPEID held in the
>>> GIC.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!is_v4_1(its_dev->its) ||
>>> atomic_read(&map->vpe->vmapp_count))
>>
>> It isn't clear to me what prevents this from racing against a mapping
>> of
>> the VPE. Actually, since we only hold the LPI irqdesc lock, I'm pretty
>> sure
>> nothing prevents it.
>
> Yes, should have the vmovp_lock held?
That's not helping because of the VPE activation.
> And is it necessary to also hold this lock in
> its_vpe_irq_domain_activate/deactivate?
Well, you'd need that, but that's unnecessary complex AFAICT.
>
>>
>>> + return -EACCES;
>>
>> I can sort of buy EACCESS for a VPE that is currently mapped, but a
>> non-4.1
>> ITS should definitely return EINVAL.
>
> Alright, EINVAL looks better.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + *val = its_peek_vpt(map->vpe, map->vintid);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int its_irq_set_irqchip_state(struct irq_data *d,
>>> enum irqchip_irq_state which,
>>> bool state)
>>> @@ -1975,6 +2012,7 @@ static struct irq_chip its_irq_chip = {
>>> .irq_eoi = irq_chip_eoi_parent,
>>> .irq_set_affinity = its_set_affinity,
>>> .irq_compose_msi_msg = its_irq_compose_msi_msg,
>>> + .irq_get_irqchip_state = its_irq_get_irqchip_state,
>>
>> My biggest issue with this is that it isn't a reliable interface.
>> It happens to work in the context of KVM, because you make sure it
>> is called at the right time, but that doesn't make it safe in general
>> (anyone with the interrupt number is allowed to call this at any
>> time).
>
> We check the vmapp_count in it to ensure the unmapping of the vPE, and
> let the caller do the unmapping (they should know whether it is the
> right
> time). If the unmapping is not done, just return a failure.
And without guaranteeing mutual exclusion against a concurrent VMAPP,
checking the vmapp_count means nothing (you need the lock described
above, and start sprinkling it around in other places as well).
>>
>> Is there a problem with poking at the VPT page from the KVM side?
>> The code should be exactly the same (maybe simpler even), and at least
>> you'd be guaranteed to be in the correct context.
>
> Yeah, that also seems a good choice.
> If you prefer it, we can try to realize it in v2.
I'd certainly prefer that. Let me know if you spot any implementation
issue with that.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-24 8:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-23 6:54 [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] KVM: arm64: Add VLPI migration support on GICv4.1 Shenming Lu
2020-11-23 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Plumb get_irqchip_state VLPI callback Shenming Lu
2020-11-23 9:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-11-24 7:38 ` Shenming Lu
2020-11-24 8:08 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2020-11-28 7:19 ` luojiaxing
2020-11-28 10:18 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-12-01 9:38 ` luojiaxing
2020-12-01 10:58 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-11-23 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/4] KVM: arm64: GICv4.1: Try to save hw pending state in save_pending_tables Shenming Lu
2020-11-23 9:18 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-11-24 7:40 ` Shenming Lu
2020-11-24 8:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-11-24 13:10 ` Shenming Lu
2020-11-23 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] KVM: arm64: GICv4.1: Restore VLPI's pending state to physical side Shenming Lu
2020-11-23 9:27 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-11-24 8:10 ` Shenming Lu
2020-11-24 8:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-11-24 13:12 ` Shenming Lu
2020-11-30 7:23 ` Shenming Lu
2020-12-01 10:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-12-01 11:40 ` Shenming Lu
2020-12-01 11:50 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-12-01 12:15 ` Shenming Lu
2020-12-08 8:25 ` Shenming Lu
2020-12-16 10:35 ` Auger Eric
2020-12-17 4:19 ` Shenming Lu
2020-11-23 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH v1 4/4] KVM: arm64: GICv4.1: Give a chance to save VLPI's pending state Shenming Lu
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=e01d8bf87ef42bda3f3ec117e474d103@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@arm.com \
--cc=cjia@nvidia.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lushenming@huawei.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).