From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DEBAC4743C for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:16:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CB2B6023E for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:16:02 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3CB2B6023E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=HPLAJwokktN2+CSt6SoM+d9WIXOB729u7qCiFWUc+es=; b=euWkEkWlCGXVTL5waFIVfoStfQ qniewoZA5YYv8uxviuGDhcqY8JfdwXAedDGLEDx0CeEhrC9uKdeY9+BumkiXE0inqM8m1t3NuOZBL tDV1RPTvui7J2VL8rdG3kgIUzDAz+G1uYEYgO4dbBBm4IxL37s99743lc58ShAWBSO1KE1IZbGdGt MvV8s0VyMes76OgkXUNgEKj7ti7ETWr8/7w4aKGUgmls4Eyp77cR4Q2JVbhzPCbd+jm4zVbxG1QdN Bfj26KWMJsSkJz58TASadzYlYt2u4glBxtvOTw1k7yE6x4d+ulJy9zHzV+PJqSyYmeav2tbmknPWz y5MX9jlA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lw3e1-00Axrs-Sl; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:14:22 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lw3dx-00Axqn-3Z for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:14:19 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB99ED1; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 07:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.110] (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B21C73F718; Wed, 23 Jun 2021 07:14:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] KVM: arm64: vgic: Implement SW-driven deactivation To: Marc Zyngier Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, James Morse , Suzuki K Poulose , Eric Auger , Hector Martin , Mark Rutland , Zenghui Yu , kernel-team@android.com References: <20210601104005.81332-1-maz@kernel.org> <20210601104005.81332-7-maz@kernel.org> <87y2b1c208.wl-maz@kernel.org> From: Alexandru Elisei Message-ID: <0e490a98-dca3-cbf9-204b-da77688057d0@arm.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:15:08 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87y2b1c208.wl-maz@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210623_071417_301322_306CD40D X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 38.12 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Marc, On 6/22/21 5:12 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 15:58:31 +0100, > Alexandru Elisei wrote: >> Hi Marc, >> >> On 6/1/21 11:40 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> In order to deal with these systems that do not offer HW-based >>> deactivation of interrupts, let implement a SW-based approach: >> Nitpick, but shouldn't that be "let's"? > "Let it be...". ;-) Yup. > >>> - When the irq is queued into a LR, treat it as a pure virtual >>> interrupt and set the EOI flag in the LR. >>> >>> - When the interrupt state is read back from the LR, force a >>> deactivation when the state is invalid (neither active nor >>> pending) >>> >>> Interrupts requiring such treatment get the VGIC_SW_RESAMPLE flag. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c | 19 +++++++++++++++---- >>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 19 +++++++++++++++---- >>> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 10 ++++++++++ >>> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c >>> index 11934c2af2f4..2c580204f1dc 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v2.c >>> @@ -108,11 +108,22 @@ void vgic_v2_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>> * 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. >>> + * >>> + * Another case is when the interrupt requires a helping hand >>> + * on deactivation (no HW deactivation, for example). >>> */ >>> - if (vgic_irq_is_mapped_level(irq) && (val & GICH_LR_PENDING_BIT)) { >>> - irq->line_level = vgic_get_phys_line_level(irq); >>> + 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)) { >> I'm having a hard time figuring out when and why a level sensitive >> can have pending_latch = true. >> >> I looked kvm_vgic_inject_irq(), and that function sets pending_latch >> only for edge triggered interrupts (it sets line_level for level >> sensitive ones). But irq_is_pending() looks at **both** >> pending_latch and line_level for level sensitive interrupts. > Yes, and that's what an implementation requires. > >> The only place that I've found that sets pending_latch regardless of >> the interrupt type is in vgic_mmio_write_spending() (called on a >> trapped write to GICD_ISENABLER). > Are you sure? It really should be GICD_ISPENDR. I'll assume that this > is what you mean below. Yes, that's what I meant, sorry for the confusion. > >> vgic_v2_populate_lr() clears >> pending_latch only for edge triggered interrupts, so that leaves >> vgic_v2_fold_lr_state() as the only function pending_latch is >> cleared for level sensitive interrupts, when the interrupt has been >> handled by the guest. Are we doing all of this to emulate the fact >> that level sensitive interrupts (either purely virtual or hw mapped) >> made pending by a write to GICD_ISENABLER remain pending until they >> are handled by the guest? > Yes, or cleared by a write to GICD_ICPENDR. You really need to think > of the input into the GIC as some sort of OR gate combining both the > line level and the PEND register. With a latch for edge interrupts. > > Have a look at Figure 4-10 ("Logic of the pending status of a > level-sensitive interrupt") in the GICv2 arch spec (ARM IHI 0048B.b) > to see what I actually mean. > >> If that is the case, then I think this is what the code is doing: >> >> - There's no functional change when the irqchip has HW deactivation >> >> - For level sensitive, hw mapped interrupts made pending by a write >> to GICD_ISENABLER and not yet handled by the guest (pending_latch == >> true) we don't clear the pending state of the interrupt. >> >> - For level sensitive, hw mapped interrupts we clear the pending >> state in the GIC and the device will assert the interrupt again if >> it's still pending at the device 1level. I have a question about >> this. Why don't we sample the interrupt state by calling >> vgic_get_phys_line_level()? Because that would be slower than the >> alternative that you are proposing here? > Yes. It is *much* faster to read the timer status register (for > example) than going via an MMIO access to read the (re)distributor > that will return the same value. Thank you for the explanation, much appreciated. The patch looks to me like it's doing the right thing. Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel