Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] KVM: arm64: vgic: Let an interrupt controller advertise lack of HW deactivation

[Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>]

Hi Alex,

On Fri, 21 May 2021 18:01:05 +0100,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 5/10/21 2:48 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > The vGIC, as architected by ARM, allows a virtual interrupt to
> > trigger the deactivation of a physical interrupt. This allows
> > the following interrupt to be delivered without requiring an exit.
> 
> If I got this right, the AIC doesn't implement/ignores the

s/AIC/M1 CPU/

> ICH_LR_EL2.HW bit. Does it mean that the CPU IF behaves as if HW =
> 0b0, meaning it asserts a maintenance interrupt on virtual interrupt
> deactivation when ICH_LR_EL2.EOI = 0b1? I assume that's the case,
> just double checking.

Yes, that's what it looks like.

> I am wondering what would happen if we come across an interrupt
> controller where the CPU IF cannot assert a maintenance interrupt at
> all and we rely on the EOI bit to take us out of the guest to
> deactivate the HW interrupt.

That'd be broken, and we wouldn't be able to support such an
implementation, at least not in configuration such as CPU isolation.

> I have to say that it looks a bit strange to start relying on the
> maintenance interrupt to emulate interrupt deactivate for hardware
> interrupts, but at the same timer allowing an interrupt controller
> without a maintenance interrupt.

We are not allowing a vGIC without a maintenance interrupt. We are
actively mandating it. The M1 does have a working per-CPU maintenance
interrupt. It just isn't wired into an interrupt controller, which
means we can't mask it. But it is otherwise perfectly functional.

> Other than that, this idea sounds like the best thing to do
> considering the circumstances, I certainly can't think of anything
> better.
> 
> >
> > However, some implementations have choosen not to implement this,
> > meaning that we will need some unsavoury workarounds to deal with this.
> >
> > On detecting such a case, taint the kernel and spit a nastygram.
> > We'll deal with this in later patches.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c       | 10 ++++++++++
> >  include/kvm/arm_vgic.h                |  3 +++
> >  include/linux/irqchip/arm-vgic-info.h |  2 ++
> >  3 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> > index 9fd23f32aa54..5b06a9970a57 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> > @@ -524,6 +524,16 @@ int kvm_vgic_hyp_init(void)
> >  	if (!gic_kvm_info)
> >  		return -ENODEV;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If we get one of these oddball non-GICs, taint the kernel,
> > +	 * as we have no idea of how they *really* behave.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (gic_kvm_info->no_hw_deactivation) {
> > +		kvm_info("Non-architectural vgic, tainting kernel\n");
> > +		add_taint(TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> > +		kvm_vgic_global_state.no_hw_deactivation = true;
> > +	}
> 
> IMO, since this means we're going to rely even more on the
> maintenance interrupt (not just for software emulation of level
> sensitive interrupts), I think there should be some sort of
> dependency on having something that resembles a working maintenance
> interrupt.

But the timer interrupt is exactly a SW emulation of a level sensitive
interrupt in this context. And the maintenance interrupt is still
required to use the vGIC.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel