lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Handle mapped level sensitive SPIs
From
Date
On 25/07/17 15:48, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:47:55PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 21/07/17 14:03, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 09:41:42AM +0200, Auger Eric wrote:
>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>
>>>> On 04/07/2017 14:15, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15/06/17 13:52, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>>>> Currently, the line level of unmapped level sensitive SPIs is
>>>>>> toggled down by the maintenance IRQ handler/resamplefd mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As mapped SPI completion is not trapped, we cannot rely on this
>>>>>> mechanism and the line level needs to be observed at distributor
>>>>>> level instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch handles the physical IRQ case in vgic_validate_injection
>>>>>> and get the line level of a mapped SPI at distributor level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v1 -> v2:
>>>>>> - renamed is_unshared_mapped into is_mapped_spi
>>>>>> - changes to kvm_vgic_map_phys_irq moved in the previous patch
>>>>>> - make vgic_validate_injection more readable
>>>>>> - reword the commit message
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h | 7 ++++++-
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
>>>>>> index 075f073..2e35ac7 100644
>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
>>>>>> @@ -139,6 +139,17 @@ void vgic_put_irq(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq)
>>>>>> kfree(irq);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +bool irq_line_level(struct vgic_irq *irq)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + bool line_level = irq->line_level;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (unlikely(is_mapped_spi(irq)))
>>>>>> + WARN_ON(irq_get_irqchip_state(irq->host_irq,
>>>>>> + IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING,
>>>>>> + &line_level));
>>>>>> + return line_level;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> /**
>>>>>> * kvm_vgic_target_oracle - compute the target vcpu for an irq
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> @@ -236,13 +247,14 @@ static void vgic_sort_ap_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * Only valid injection if changing level for level-triggered IRQs or for a
>>>>>> - * rising edge.
>>>>>> + * rising edge. Injection of virtual interrupts associated to physical
>>>>>> + * interrupts always is valid.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> static bool vgic_validate_injection(struct vgic_irq *irq, bool level)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> switch (irq->config) {
>>>>>> case VGIC_CONFIG_LEVEL:
>>>>>> - return irq->line_level != level;
>>>>>> + return (irq->line_level != level || unlikely(is_mapped_spi(irq)));
>>>>>> case VGIC_CONFIG_EDGE:
>>>>>> return level;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
>>>>>> index bba7fa2..da254ae 100644
>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h
>>>>>> @@ -96,14 +96,19 @@
>>>>>> /* we only support 64 kB translation table page size */
>>>>>> #define KVM_ITS_L1E_ADDR_MASK GENMASK_ULL(51, 16)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +bool irq_line_level(struct vgic_irq *irq);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> static inline bool irq_is_pending(struct vgic_irq *irq)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> if (irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_EDGE)
>>>>>> return irq->pending_latch;
>>>>>> else
>>>>>> - return irq->pending_latch || irq->line_level;
>>>>>> + return irq->pending_latch || irq_line_level(irq);
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a bit concerned that an edge interrupt doesn't take the distributor
>>>>> state into account here. Why is that so? Once an SPI is forwarded to a
>>>>> guest, a large part of the edge vs level differences move into the HW,
>>>>> and are not that different anymore from a SW PoV.
>>>>
>>>> As pointed out by Christoffer in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/8/322,
>>>> isn't it a bit risky in general to poke the physical state instead of
>>>> the virtual state. For level sensitive, to me we don't really have many
>>>> other alternatives. For edge, we are not obliged to.
>>>
>>> I think we need to be clear on the fundamental question of whether or
>>> not we consider pending_latch and/or line_level for mapped interrupts.
>>>
>>> I can definitely see the argument that the pending state is kept in
>>> hardware, so if you want to know that for a mapped interrupt, ask the
>>> hardware.
>>>
>>> The upside of this appraoch is a clean separation of state and we avoid
>>> any logic to synchronize a virtual state with the physical state.
>>>
>>> The downside is that it's slower to peek into the physical GIC than to
>>> read a variable from memory, and we need to special case the validate
>>> path (which I now understand).
>>>
>>> If we move to keeping the state in HW, how do we deal with GICD_SPENDR ?
>>> Does that mean we will forward a from the VM handled by the VGIC to the
>>> physical GIC?
>>
>> Sounds like it to me. Otherwise, we start loosing some state.
>
> How do we loose state? Is it not more a question of complexity to make
> sure the 'cached' vgic state is up to date with the real state? (like
> what we currently do for the timer mapped interrupt).

Sorry, I was very imprecise here. It is not so much that we'd loose
state, but that we'd have some state at the wrong location. If we have a
guest playing with the pending state, we need to make sure the physical
side is up to date. Otherwise, we can end-up in situations where we'd
inject an interrupt for the guest based on a pending state that only
exists in the virtual distributor, and yet the virtual CPUIF is going to
try and deactivate it in the physical side on EOI.

> On GICv2 this is likely going to make injecting timer interrupts slower,
> because we'll check the pending state of whatever's in the AP list on
> entry to the guest and peek into the physical GIC again.

That's a very valid concern. Though there is a slight distinction with
the timer, in that we entirely control the injection of the interrupt,
while an SPI can fire an any particular moment.

>
>> Note that
>> this is what my GICv4 patches are also doing, by forwarding the INT and
>> CLEAR commands to the physical ITS.
>>
>>>> Don't we have situations, due to the lazy disable approach, where the
>>>> physical IRQ hits, enters the genirq handler and the actual handler is
>>>> not called, ie. the virtual IRQ is not injected?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I remember what these situations were, specifically, but
>>> certainly if we ever have a situation where a mapped irq's pending state
>>> should be different from that of the physical one, then it doesn't work.
>>
>> There is a very simple way around the issue Eric mentions, which is to
>> use the "IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY" flag, which disable the lazy disabling of
>> interrupts. That's also something the GICv4 patches use, as when we
>> mask an interrupt, we want to be sure that it is immediately done (the
>> host side will never see the interrupt firing, and thus can never
>> disabled it).
>>
> If we don't care about the potential performance hit mentioned above, it
> sounds like a good solution to me.

I think we need to measure the damage this would cause.

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-25 17:43    [W:0.124 / U:8.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site