[PATCH v2 10/15] KVM: arm64: add data structures to model ITS interrupt translation

[Andre Przywara]

Hi Eric,

On 13/08/15 16:46, Eric Auger wrote:
> 
> On 07/10/2015 04:21 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> The GICv3 Interrupt Translation Service (ITS) uses tables in memory
>> to allow a sophisticated interrupt routing. It features device tables,
>> an interrupt table per device and a table connecting "collections" to
>> actual CPUs (aka. redistributors in the GICv3 lingo).
>> Since the interrupt numbers for the LPIs are allocated quite sparsely
>> and the range can be quite huge (8192 LPIs being the minimum), using
>> bitmaps or arrays for storing information is a waste of memory.
>> We use linked lists instead, which we iterate linearily. This works
>> very well with the actual number of LPIs/MSIs in the guest being
>> quite low. Should the number of LPIs exceed the number where iterating
>> through lists seems acceptable, we can later revisit this and use more
>> efficient data structures.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com>
>> ---
>>  include/kvm/arm_vgic.h  |  3 +++
>>  virt/kvm/arm/its-emul.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 51 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> index b432055..1648668 100644
>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>>  #include <linux/types.h>
>>  #include <kvm/iodev.h>
>> +#include <linux/list.h>
>>  
>>  #define VGIC_NR_IRQS_LEGACY	256
>>  #define VGIC_NR_SGIS		16
>> @@ -162,6 +163,8 @@ struct vgic_its {
>>  	u64			cbaser;
>>  	int			creadr;
>>  	int			cwriter;
>> +	struct list_head	device_list;
>> +	struct list_head	collection_list;
>>  };
>>  
>>  struct vgic_dist {
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/its-emul.c b/virt/kvm/arm/its-emul.c
>> index b498f06..7f217fa 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/its-emul.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/its-emul.c
>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/kvm.h>
>>  #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
>>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> +#include <linux/list.h>
>>  
>>  #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
>>  #include <kvm/arm_vgic.h>
>> @@ -32,6 +33,25 @@
>>  #include "vgic.h"
>>  #include "its-emul.h"
>>  
>> +struct its_device {
>> +	struct list_head dev_list;
>> +	struct list_head itt;
>> +	u32 device_id;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct its_collection {
>> +	struct list_head coll_list;
>> +	u32 collection_id;
>> +	u32 target_addr;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct its_itte {
>> +	struct list_head itte_list;
>> +	struct its_collection *collection;
>> +	u32 lpi;
>> +	u32 event_id;
>> +};
>> +
>>  #define BASER_BASE_ADDRESS(x) ((x) & 0xfffffffff000ULL)
>>  
>>  /* The distributor lock is held by the VGIC MMIO handler. */
>> @@ -311,6 +331,9 @@ int vits_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>>  
>>  	spin_lock_init(&its->lock);
>>  
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&its->device_list);
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&its->collection_list);
>> +
>>  	its->enabled = false;
>>  
>>  	return -ENXIO;
>> @@ -320,11 +343,36 @@ void vits_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
>>  {
>>  	struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
>>  	struct vgic_its *its = &dist->its;
>> +	struct its_device *dev;
>> +	struct its_itte *itte;
>> +	struct list_head *dev_cur, *dev_temp;
>> +	struct list_head *cur, *temp;
>>  
>>  	if (!vgic_has_its(kvm))
>>  		return;
>>  
>> +	if (!its->device_list.next)
> Why not using list_empty? But I think I would simply remove this since
> the empty case if handle below...

list_empty() requires the list to be initialized before. This check here
is to detect that map_resources was never called (this is only done on
the first VCPU run) and thus device_list is basically still all zeroes.
If we abort the guest without ever running a VCPU (for instance because
some initialization failed), we call vits_destroy() anyway (because this
is called when tearing down the VGIC device).
So the check is here to detect early that vits_destroy() has been called
without the ITS ever been fully initialized. This fixed a real bug when
the guest start was aborted before the ITS was ever used.
I will add a comment to make this clear.

>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&its->lock);
>> +	list_for_each_safe(dev_cur, dev_temp, &its->device_list) {
>> +		dev = container_of(dev_cur, struct its_device, dev_list);
> isn't the usage of list_for_each_entry_safe more synthetic here?

If I got this correctly, we need the _safe variant if we want to remove
the list item within the loop. Or am I missing something here?

Cheers,
Andre.


>> +		list_for_each_safe(cur, temp, &dev->itt) {
>> +			itte = (container_of(cur, struct its_itte, itte_list));
> same
> 
> Eric
>> +			list_del(cur);
>> +			kfree(itte);
>> +		}
>> +		list_del(dev_cur);
>> +		kfree(dev);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	list_for_each_safe(cur, temp, &its->collection_list) {
>> +		list_del(cur);
>> +		kfree(container_of(cur, struct its_collection, coll_list));
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	kfree(dist->pendbaser);
>>  
>>  	its->enabled = false;
>> +	spin_unlock(&its->lock);
>>  }
>>
>