[kvmarm] [PATCH v5 06/14] KVM: ARM: Inject IRQs and FIQs from userspace

Alexander Graf agraf at suse.de
Tue Jan 15 11:25:13 EST 2013

On 01/15/2013 04:17 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 02:04:47PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 15 January 2013 12:52, Gleb Natapov<gleb at redhat.com>  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:15:01PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> On 15 January 2013 09:56, Gleb Natapov<gleb at redhat.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> ARM can signal an interrupt either at the CPU level, or at the in-kernel irqchip
>>>>> CPU level interrupt should use KVM_INTERRUPT instead.
>>>> No, that would be wrong. KVM_INTERRUPT is for interrupts which must be
>>>> delivered synchronously to the CPU. KVM_IRQ_LINE is for interrupts which
>>>> can be fed to the kernel asynchronously. It happens that on x86 "must be
>>>> delivered synchronously" and "not going to in kernel irqchip" are the same, but
>>>> this isn't true for other archs. For ARM all our interrupts can be fed
>>>> to the kernel asynchronously, and so we use KVM_IRQ_LINE in all
>>>> cases.
>>> I do no quite understand what you mean by synchronously and
>>> asynchronously.
>> Synchronously: the vcpu has to be stopped and userspace then
>> feeds in the interrupt to be taken when the guest is resumed.
>> Asynchronously: any old thread can tell the kernel there's an
>> interrupt, and the guest vcpu then deals with it when needed
>> (the vcpu thread may leave the guest but doesn't come out of
>> the host kernel to qemu).
>>> The difference between KVM_INTERRUPT and KVM_IRQ_LINE line
>>> is that former is used when destination cpu is known to userspace later
>>> is used when kernel code is involved in figuring out the destination.
>> This doesn't match up with Avi's explanation at all.
>>> The
>>> injections themselves are currently synchronous for both of them on x86
>>> and ARM. i.e vcpu is kicked out from guest mode when interrupt need to
>>> be injected into a guest and vcpu state is changed to inject interrupt
>>> during next guest entry. In the near feature x86 will be able to inject
>>> interrupt without kicking vcpu out from the guest mode does ARM plan to
>>> do the same? For GIC interrupts or for IRQ/FIQ or for both?
>>>> There was a big discussion thread about this on kvm and qemu-devel last
>>>> July (and we cleaned up some of the QEMU code to not smoosh together
>>>> all these different concepts under "do I have an irqchip or not?").
>>> Do you have a pointer?
>>    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-07/msg02460.html
>> and there was a later longer (but less clear) thread which included
>> this mail from Avi:
>>    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-07/msg02872.html
>> basically explaining that the reason for the weird synchronous
>> KVM_INTERRUPT API is that it's emulating a weird synchronous
>> hardware interface which is specific to x86. ARM doesn't have
>> a synchronous interface in the same way, so it's much more
>> straightforward to use KVM_IRQ_LINE.
> OK. I see. So basically Avi saw KVM_INTERRUPT as an oddball interface
> required only for APIC emulation in userspace. It is used for PIC also,
> where this is not strictly needed, but this is for historical reasons
> (KVM_IRQ_LINE was introduces late and it is GSI centric on x86).
> Thank you for the pointer.

Yeah, please keep in mind that KVM_INTERRUPT is not a unified interface 
either. In fact, it is asynchronous on PPC :). And it's called 
KVM_S390_INTERRUPT on s390 and also asynchronous. X86 is the oddball here.

But I don't care whether we call the ioctl to steer CPU interrupt pins 
KVM_INTERRUPT, KVM_S390_INTERRUPT or KVM_IRQ_LINE, as long as the code 
makes it obvious what is happening.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list