From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/11] x86/vioapic: switch to use the EOI callback mechanism
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 17:19:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f8d9c37f-8896-36af-712a-ac0765567409@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210331103303.79705-6-roger.pau@citrix.com>
On 31.03.2021 12:32, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c
> @@ -394,6 +394,50 @@ static const struct hvm_mmio_ops vioapic_mmio_ops = {
> .write = vioapic_write
> };
>
> +static void eoi_callback(unsigned int vector, void *data)
> +{
> + struct domain *d = current->domain;
> + struct hvm_irq *hvm_irq = hvm_domain_irq(d);
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + ASSERT(has_vioapic(d));
On the same grounds on which you dropped checks from hvm_dpci_msi_eoi()
in the previous patch you could imo now drop this assertion.
> @@ -621,7 +624,43 @@ static int ioapic_load(struct domain *d, hvm_domain_context_t *h)
> d->arch.hvm.nr_vioapics != 1 )
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> - return hvm_load_entry(IOAPIC, h, &s->domU);
> + rc = hvm_load_entry(IOAPIC, h, &s->domU);
> + if ( rc )
> + return rc;
> +
> + for ( i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(s->domU.redirtbl); i++ )
> + {
> + const union vioapic_redir_entry *ent = &s->domU.redirtbl[i];
> + unsigned int vector = ent->fields.vector;
> + unsigned int delivery_mode = ent->fields.delivery_mode;
> + struct vcpu *v;
> +
> + /*
> + * Add a callback for each possible vector injected by a redirection
> + * entry.
> + */
> + if ( vector < 16 || !ent->fields.remote_irr ||
> + (delivery_mode != dest_LowestPrio && delivery_mode != dest_Fixed) )
> + continue;
> +
> + for_each_vcpu ( d, v )
> + {
> + struct vlapic *vlapic = vcpu_vlapic(v);
> +
> + /*
> + * NB: if the vlapic registers were restored before the vio-apic
> + * ones we could test whether the vector is set in the vlapic IRR
> + * or ISR registers before unconditionally setting the callback.
> + * This is harmless as eoi_callback is capable of dealing with
> + * spurious callbacks.
> + */
> + if ( vlapic_match_dest(vlapic, NULL, 0, ent->fields.dest_id,
> + ent->fields.dest_mode) )
> + vlapic_set_callback(vlapic, vector, eoi_callback, NULL);
eoi_callback()'s behavior is only one of the aspects to consider here.
The other is vlapic_set_callback()'s complaining if it finds a
callback already set. What guarantees that a mistakenly set callback
here won't get in conflict with some future use of the same vector by
the guest?
And btw - like in the earlier patch you could again pass d instead of
NULL here, avoiding the need to establish it from current in the
callback.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c
> @@ -192,7 +192,13 @@ void vlapic_set_irq_callback(struct vlapic *vlapic, uint8_t vec, uint8_t trig,
>
> if ( hvm_funcs.update_eoi_exit_bitmap )
> alternative_vcall(hvm_funcs.update_eoi_exit_bitmap, target, vec,
> - trig || callback);
> + /*
> + * NB: need to explicitly convert to boolean to avoid
> + * truncation wrongly result in false begin reported
> + * for example when the pointer sits on a page
> + * boundary.
> + */
> + !!callback);
I've had quite a bit of difficulty with the comment. Once I realized
that you likely mean "being" instead of "begin" it got a bit better.
I'd like to suggest also s/result/resulting/, a comma after "reported",
and maybe then s/being reported/getting passed/.
As to explicitly converting to bool, wouldn't a cast to bool do? That's
more explicitly an "explicit conversion" than using !!.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-07 15:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-31 10:32 [PATCH v3 00/11] x86/intr: introduce EOI callbacks and fix vPT Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 01/11] x86/hvm: drop vcpu parameter from vlapic EOI callbacks Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 16:02 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 16:24 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-04-01 9:12 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-01 11:06 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-07 7:41 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-07 8:19 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 02/11] x86/hvm: drop domain parameter from vioapic/vpic " Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 16:04 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-01 9:15 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-01 9:28 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 03/11] x86/vlapic: introduce an EOI callback mechanism Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 11:47 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-03-31 12:50 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-07 14:55 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-07 16:27 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 6:20 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 9:12 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 10:49 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 10:56 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 04/11] x86/vmsi: use the newly introduced EOI callbacks Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-07 14:59 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 05/11] x86/vioapic: switch to use the EOI callback mechanism Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-07 15:19 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2021-04-07 16:46 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 6:27 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 8:59 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 10:52 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 06/11] x86/hvm: allowing registering EOI callbacks for GSIs Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-07 15:51 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-07 17:08 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 6:34 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-15 16:04 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-16 7:29 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-19 8:31 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 12:52 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 14:31 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 15:06 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 07/11] x86/dpci: move code Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 10:33 ` [PATCH v3 08/11] x86/dpci: switch to use a GSI EOI callback Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-08 14:49 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 15:23 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-31 10:33 ` [PATCH v3 09/11] x86/vpt: switch interrupt injection model Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-14 10:28 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-14 13:37 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-14 14:05 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-14 14:20 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-31 10:33 ` [PATCH v3 10/11] x86/vpt: remove vPT timers per-vCPU lists Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-14 10:38 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:33 ` [PATCH v3 11/11] x86/vpt: introduce a per-vPT lock Roger Pau Monne
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=f8d9c37f-8896-36af-712a-ac0765567409@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/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).