kvmarm.lists.cs.columbia.edu archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Auger Eric <eric.auger@redhat.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	 kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "Raslan, KarimAllah" <karahmed@amazon.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Add LPI translation cache definition
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 13:44:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <856ab7bd-3ba1-e10e-1bf5-7a821c753a53@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7b4a5bc3-8168-50bb-e2aa-3ff081199d04@redhat.com>

Hi Eric,

On 07/06/2019 13:09, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 6/6/19 6:54 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Add the basic data structure that expresses an MSI to LPI
>> translation as well as the allocation/release hooks.
>>
>> THe size of the cache is arbitrarily defined as 4*nr_vcpus.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  include/kvm/arm_vgic.h        | 10 ++++++++++
>>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c  |  2 ++
>>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h      |  3 +++
>>  4 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> index c36c86f1ec9a..5a0d6b07c5ef 100644
>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> @@ -173,6 +173,14 @@ struct vgic_io_device {
>>  	struct kvm_io_device dev;
>>  };
>>  
>> +struct vgic_translation_cache_entry {
>> +	struct list_head	entry;
>> +	phys_addr_t		db;
> it is not obvious to me why you do need the db field? Isn't the LPI
> uniquely identfiied by the devid and eventid. If I recall correctly
> theorically the architecture allows to handle LPIs even without ITS.

Only having DID+EID is unfortunately not enough, and the translation has
to be per ITS. Think of a system with two ITSs, and a PCI device in
front of each of the ITSs. There is no reason why the two devices would
have different IDs, as they belong to different PCI hierarchies.

So the cache must take the source ITS into account. The alternative
would be to keep a separate cache per ITS, but that would lead to more
overhead on the fast path, having to lookup the ITS first.

As for LPIs without ITS, that wouldn't need a cache at all.

>> +	u32			devid;
>> +	u32			eventid;
>> +	struct vgic_irq		*irq;
>> +};
>> +
>>  struct vgic_its {
>>  	/* The base address of the ITS control register frame */
>>  	gpa_t			vgic_its_base;
>> @@ -260,6 +268,8 @@ struct vgic_dist {
>>  	struct list_head	lpi_list_head;
>>  	int			lpi_list_count;
>>  
>> +	struct list_head	lpi_translation_cache;
>> +
>>  	/* used by vgic-debug */
>>  	struct vgic_state_iter *iter;
>>  
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c
>> index 3bdb31eaed64..25ae25694a28 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-init.c
>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ void kvm_vgic_early_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>>  	struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
>>  
>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dist->lpi_list_head);
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dist->lpi_translation_cache);
>>  	raw_spin_lock_init(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
>>  }
>>  
>> @@ -260,6 +261,27 @@ static void kvm_vgic_vcpu_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  		vgic_v3_enable(vcpu);
>>  }
>>  
>> +void vgic_lpi_translation_cache_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> +	struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	if (!list_empty(&dist->lpi_translation_cache))
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < LPI_CACHE_SIZE(kvm); i++) {
>> +		struct vgic_translation_cache_entry *cte;
>> +
>> +		/* An allocation failure is not fatal */
>> +		cte = kzalloc(sizeof(*cte), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +		if (WARN_ON(!cte))
>> +			break;
>> +
>> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cte->entry);
>> +		list_add(&cte->entry, &dist->lpi_translation_cache);
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * vgic_init: allocates and initializes dist and vcpu data structures
>>   * depending on two dimensioning parameters:
>> @@ -305,6 +327,7 @@ int vgic_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	if (vgic_has_its(kvm)) {
>> +		vgic_lpi_translation_cache_init(kvm);
>>  		ret = vgic_v4_init(kvm);
>>  		if (ret)
>>  			goto out;
>> @@ -346,6 +369,17 @@ static void kvm_vgic_dist_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
>>  		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dist->rd_regions);
>>  	}
>>  
>> +	if (vgic_has_its(kvm)) {
>> +		struct vgic_translation_cache_entry *cte, *tmp;
>> +
>> +		list_for_each_entry_safe(cte, tmp,
>> +					 &dist->lpi_translation_cache, entry) {
>> +			list_del(&cte->entry);
>> +			kfree(cte);
>> +		}
>> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dist->lpi_translation_cache);
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	if (vgic_supports_direct_msis(kvm))
>>  		vgic_v4_teardown(kvm);
>>  }
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> index 44ceaccb18cf..5758504fd934 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>> @@ -1696,6 +1696,8 @@ static int vgic_its_create(struct kvm_device *dev, u32 type)
>>  			kfree(its);
>>  			return ret;
>>  		}
>> +
>> +		vgic_lpi_translation_cache_init(dev->kvm);
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	mutex_init(&its->its_lock);
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
>> index abeeffabc456..a58e1b263dca 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
>> @@ -316,6 +316,9 @@ int vgic_copy_lpi_list(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 **intid_ptr);
>>  int vgic_its_resolve_lpi(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its,
>>  			 u32 devid, u32 eventid, struct vgic_irq **irq);
>>  struct vgic_its *vgic_msi_to_its(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_msi *msi);
>> +void vgic_lpi_translation_cache_init(struct kvm *kvm);
>> +
>> +#define LPI_CACHE_SIZE(kvm)	(atomic_read(&(kvm)->online_vcpus) * 4)
> Couldn't the cache be a function of the number of allocated lpis. We
> could realloc the list accordingly. I miss why it is rather dependent on
> the number of vcpus and not on the number of assigned devices/MSIs?

How do you find out about the number of LPIs? That's really for the
guest to decide what it wants to do. Also, KVM itself doesn't have much
of a clue about the number of assigned devices or their MSI capability.
That's why I've suggested that userspace could be involved here.

So far, I've used the number of vcpus as MSIs are usually used to deal
with per-CPU queues. This allows the cache to scale with the number of
queues that the guest is expected to deal with. Ali's reply earlier seem
to indicate that this is a common pattern, but it is the multiplying
factor that is hard to express.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-07 12:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-06 16:54 [PATCH 0/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: ITS translation cache Marc Zyngier
2019-06-06 16:54 ` [PATCH 1/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Add LPI translation cache definition Marc Zyngier
2019-06-07  3:47   ` Saidi, Ali
2019-06-07  7:38     ` Marc Zyngier
2019-06-07  8:12   ` Julien Thierry
2019-06-07  8:38     ` Marc Zyngier
2019-06-07 12:09   ` Auger Eric
2019-06-07 12:44     ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2019-06-07 14:15       ` Auger Eric
2019-06-07 15:04         ` Marc Zyngier
2019-06-06 16:54 ` [PATCH 2/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Add __vgic_put_lpi_locked primitive Marc Zyngier
2019-06-07 12:11   ` Auger Eric
2019-06-06 16:54 ` [PATCH 3/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-its: Cache successful MSI->LPI translation Marc Zyngier
2019-06-07  8:35   ` Julien Thierry
2019-06-07  8:51     ` Marc Zyngier
2019-06-07  8:56       ` Julien Thierry
2019-06-07  9:16         ` Marc Zyngier
2019-06-07 14:29   ` Auger Eric
2019-06-06 16:54 ` [PATCH 4/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-its: Add kvm parameter to vgic_its_free_collection Marc Zyngier
2019-06-07 14:29   ` Auger Eric
2019-06-07 14:49     ` Marc Zyngier
2019-06-06 16:54 ` [PATCH 5/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-its: Invalidate MSI-LPI translation cache on specific commands Marc Zyngier
2019-06-06 16:54 ` [PATCH 6/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-its: Invalidate MSI-LPI translation cache on disabling LPIs Marc Zyngier
2019-06-06 16:54 ` [PATCH 7/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-its: Check the LPI translation cache on MSI injection Marc Zyngier
2019-06-06 16:54 ` [PATCH 8/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-irqfd: Implement kvm_arch_set_irq_inatomic Marc Zyngier

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=856ab7bd-3ba1-e10e-1bf5-7a821c753a53@arm.com \
    --to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
    --cc=karahmed@amazon.de \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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).