From: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: KVM: arm64: vgic: Resample HW pending state on deactivation
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 11:42:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJHc60z9AQ1huwan_WE5etEV0BAq_ZtNea+0u1AqgGHdAFmKQw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210818184057.515187-1-rananta@google.com>
Please ignore this. Sent by accident.
Regards,
Raghavendra
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:41 AM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
<rananta@google.com> wrote:
>
> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>
> When a mapped level interrupt (a timer, for example) is deactivated
> by the guest, the corresponding host interrupt is equally deactivated.
> However, the fate of the pending state still needs to be dealt
> with in SW.
>
> This is specially true when the interrupt was in the active+pending
> state in the virtual distributor at the point where the guest
> was entered. On exit, the pending state is potentially stale
> (the guest may have put the interrupt in a non-pending state).
>
> If we don't do anything, the interrupt will be spuriously injected
> in the guest. Although this shouldn't have any ill effect (spurious
> interrupts are always possible), we can improve the emulation by
> detecting the deactivation-while-pending case and resample the
> interrupt.
>
> Reported-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
> index 2c580204f1dc9..3e52ea86a87ff 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ void vgic_v2_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> u32 val = cpuif->vgic_lr[lr];
> u32 cpuid, intid = val & GICH_LR_VIRTUALID;
> struct vgic_irq *irq;
> + bool deactivated;
>
> /* Extract the source vCPU id from the LR */
> cpuid = val & GICH_LR_PHYSID_CPUID;
> @@ -75,7 +76,8 @@ void vgic_v2_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> raw_spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
>
> - /* Always preserve the active bit */
> + /* Always preserve the active bit, note deactivation */
> + deactivated = irq->active && !(val & GICH_LR_ACTIVE_BIT);
> irq->active = !!(val & GICH_LR_ACTIVE_BIT);
>
> if (irq->active && vgic_irq_is_sgi(intid))
> @@ -105,6 +107,12 @@ void vgic_v2_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> * device state could have changed or we simply need to
> * process the still pending interrupt later.
> *
> + * We could also have entered the guest with the interrupt
> + * active+pending. On the next exit, we need to re-evaluate
> + * the pending state, as it could otherwise result in a
> + * spurious interrupt by injecting a now potentially stale
> + * pending state.
> + *
> * If this causes us to lower the level, we have to also clear
> * the physical active state, since we will otherwise never be
> * told when the interrupt becomes asserted again.
> @@ -115,12 +123,15 @@ void vgic_v2_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> if (vgic_irq_is_mapped_level(irq)) {
> bool resample = false;
>
> - if (val & GICH_LR_PENDING_BIT) {
> - irq->line_level = vgic_get_phys_line_level(irq);
> - resample = !irq->line_level;
> - } else if (vgic_irq_needs_resampling(irq) &&
> - !(irq->active || irq->pending_latch)) {
> - resample = true;
> + if (unlikely(vgic_irq_needs_resampling(irq))) {
> + if (!(irq->active || irq->pending_latch))
> + resample = true;
> + } else {
> + if ((val & GICH_LR_PENDING_BIT) ||
> + (deactivated && irq->line_level)) {
> + irq->line_level = vgic_get_phys_line_level(irq);
> + resample = !irq->line_level;
> + }
> }
>
> if (resample)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> index 66004f61cd83d..74f9aefffd5e0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ void vgic_v3_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> u32 intid, cpuid;
> struct vgic_irq *irq;
> bool is_v2_sgi = false;
> + bool deactivated;
>
> cpuid = val & GICH_LR_PHYSID_CPUID;
> cpuid >>= GICH_LR_PHYSID_CPUID_SHIFT;
> @@ -68,7 +69,8 @@ void vgic_v3_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> raw_spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
>
> - /* Always preserve the active bit */
> + /* Always preserve the active bit, note deactivation */
> + deactivated = irq->active && !(val & ICH_LR_ACTIVE_BIT);
> irq->active = !!(val & ICH_LR_ACTIVE_BIT);
>
> if (irq->active && is_v2_sgi)
> @@ -98,6 +100,12 @@ void vgic_v3_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> * device state could have changed or we simply need to
> * process the still pending interrupt later.
> *
> + * We could also have entered the guest with the interrupt
> + * active+pending. On the next exit, we need to re-evaluate
> + * the pending state, as it could otherwise result in a
> + * spurious interrupt by injecting a now potentially stale
> + * pending state.
> + *
> * If this causes us to lower the level, we have to also clear
> * the physical active state, since we will otherwise never be
> * told when the interrupt becomes asserted again.
> @@ -108,12 +116,15 @@ void vgic_v3_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> if (vgic_irq_is_mapped_level(irq)) {
> bool resample = false;
>
> - if (val & ICH_LR_PENDING_BIT) {
> - irq->line_level = vgic_get_phys_line_level(irq);
> - resample = !irq->line_level;
> - } else if (vgic_irq_needs_resampling(irq) &&
> - !(irq->active || irq->pending_latch)) {
> - resample = true;
> + if (unlikely(vgic_irq_needs_resampling(irq))) {
> + if (!(irq->active || irq->pending_latch))
> + resample = true;
> + } else {
> + if ((val & ICH_LR_PENDING_BIT) ||
> + (deactivated && irq->line_level)) {
> + irq->line_level = vgic_get_phys_line_level(irq);
> + resample = !irq->line_level;
> + }
> }
>
> if (resample)
> --
> cgit 1.2.3-1.el7
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-18 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-18 18:40 KVM: arm64: vgic: Resample HW pending state on deactivation Raghavendra Rao Ananta
2021-08-18 18:42 ` Raghavendra Rao Ananta [this message]
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=CAJHc60z9AQ1huwan_WE5etEV0BAq_ZtNea+0u1AqgGHdAFmKQw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rananta@google.com \
--cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jingzhangos@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@google.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pshier@google.com \
--cc=reijiw@google.com \
--cc=ricarkol@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).