From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: "Christoffer Dall" <cdall@cs.columbia.edu>,
"Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
"Marc Zyngier" <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
"Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:10:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150416191044.GF6186@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <552403BF.8090008@redhat.com>
Hi Paolo and Marc,
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 06:20:15PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> >> from the kvm-arm tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> >> (no action is required).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
> >>
> >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> >> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> >> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> >> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> >> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
> >>
> >> vlr.irq = irq;
> >> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> >> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> >> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> >> -
> >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + vlr.state = 0;
> >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >>
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >
> > Looks great, thanks!
> > -Christoffer
>
> Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
> a different resolution though:
>
> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
> }
> }
>
> + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
> + int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> + {
> + if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
> + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
> + kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
> + vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
> + } else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
> + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> + kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + }
> +
> + if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> + vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> +
> + vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> ++ vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> + }
> +
> /*
> * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
> * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
> @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> return true;
> }
> }
> @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
>
> vlr.irq = irq;
> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> -
> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> + vlr.state = 0;
> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>
> return true;
> }
>
>
> Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
> can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
>
> (Stephen, you'll still get the conflicts in linux-next for a
> couple of days as I finish local testing of KVM changes for 4.1).
>
As it turns out, it was not the same logic as Stephen's resolution.
Stephen's resolution is bussy, because vlr is passed by value to
vgic_queue_irq_to_lr() and therefore the call to sync the elrsr does not
have any effect.
Unfortunately, it seems Paolo's more correct fix did not end up in
Linus' tree, so I guess I should just send a patch?
-Christoffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-16 19:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-18 3:41 linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell
2015-03-18 7:55 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-04-07 16:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-04-08 8:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-04-08 10:57 ` Christoffer Dall
2015-04-16 19:10 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2015-04-16 19:39 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-04-16 20:16 ` Christoffer Dall
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-01-03 2:38 Stephen Rothwell
2018-01-03 9:50 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-11-06 2:56 Stephen Rothwell
2017-11-06 2:52 Stephen Rothwell
2017-04-10 4:02 Stephen Rothwell
2017-04-10 8:02 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-17 1:47 Stephen Rothwell
2014-07-31 6:30 Stephen Rothwell
2014-07-31 12:10 ` Marc Zyngier
[not found] ` <CAEDV+gJ1oSPzgZMO=kdFDNPnzy-EOHGuLxHqTB8KO6d_8yPrxQ@mail.gmail.com>
2014-07-31 12:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-07-31 14:23 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-31 14:30 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-08-01 5:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
2014-07-31 12:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
2014-07-31 12:41 ` Stephen Rothwell
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=20150416191044.GF6186@cbox \
--to=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=cdall@cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/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).