[PATCH v4 18/21] KVM: ARM64: Add PMU overflow interrupt routing

[Shannon Zhao]

On 2015/12/2 16:45, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 02/12/15 02:40, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 2015/12/2 0:57, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> >> On 01/12/15 16:26, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 2015/12/1 23:41, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>> The reason is that when guest clear the overflow register, it will trap
>>>>>>> >>>>>> to kvm and call kvm_pmu_sync_hwstate() as you see above. At this moment,
>>>>>>> >>>>>> the overflow register is still overflowed(that is some bit is still 1).
>>>>>>> >>>>>> So We need to use some flag to mark we already inject this interrupt.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> And if during guest handling the overflow, there is a new overflow
>>>>>>> >>>>>> happening, the pmu->irq_pending will be set ture by
>>>>>>> >>>>>> kvm_pmu_perf_overflow(), then it needs to inject this new interrupt, right?
>>>>> >>>> I don't think so. This is a level interrupt, so the level should stay
>>>>> >>>> high as long as the guest hasn't cleared all possible sources for that
>>>>> >>>> interrupt.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> For your example, the guest writes to PMOVSCLR to clear the overflow
>>>>> >>>> caused by a given counter. If the status is now 0, the interrupt line
>>>>> >>>> drops. If the status is still non zero, the line stays high. And I
>>>>> >>>> believe that writing a 1 to PMOVSSET would actually trigger an
>>>>> >>>> interrupt, or keep it high if it has already high.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>> Right, writing 1 to PMOVSSET will trigger an interrupt.
>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> In essence, do not try to maintain side state. I've been bitten.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> So on VM entry, it check if PMOVSSET is zero. If not, call 
>>>> >>> kvm_vgic_inject_irq to set the level high. If so, set the level low.
>>>> >>> On VM exit, it seems there is nothing to do.
>>> >>
>>> >> It is even simpler than that:
>>> >>
>>> >> - When you get an overflow, you inject an interrupt with the level set to 1.
>>> >> - When the overflow register gets cleared, you inject the same interrupt
>>> >> with the level set to 0.
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't think you need to do anything else, and the world switch should
>>> >> be left untouched.
>>> >>
>> > 
>> > On 2015/7/17 23:28, Christoffer Dall wrote:>> > +		
>> > kvm_vgic_inject_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->vcpu_id,
>>>>> >>>> +					    pmu->irq_num, 1);
>>> >> what context is this overflow handler function?  kvm_vgic_inject_irq
>>> >> grabs a mutex, so it can sleep...
>>> >>
>>> >> from a quick glance at the perf core code, it looks like this is in
>>> >> interrupt context, so that call to kvm_vgic_inject_irq looks bad.
>>> >>
>> > 
>> > But as Christoffer said before, it's not good to call
>> > kvm_vgic_inject_irq directly in interrupt context. So if we just kick
>> > the vcpu here and call kvm_vgic_inject_irq on VM entry, is this fine?
> Possibly. I'm slightly worried that inject_irq itself is going to kick
> the vcpu again for no good reason. 
Yes, this will introduce a extra kick. What's the impact of kicking a
kicked vcpu?

> I guess we'll find out (and maybe
> we'll add a kvm_vgic_inject_irq_no_kick_please() helper...).
And add a parameter "bool kick" for vgic_update_irq_pending ?

-- 
Shannon