[PATCH 07/10] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Allow HW interrupts to be queued to a guest
marc.zyngier at arm.com
Thu Jun 11 03:02:56 PDT 2015
On 11/06/15 10:44, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 10:15 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 11/06/15 09:44, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2015 06:04 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> @@ -1344,6 +1364,35 @@ static bool vgic_process_maintenance(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> return level_pending;
>>>> +/* Return 1 if HW interrupt went from active to inactive, and 0 otherwise */
>>>> +static int vgic_sync_hwirq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_lr vlr)
>>>> + struct irq_phys_map *map;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> + if (!(vlr.state & LR_HW))
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> + map = vgic_irq_map_search(vcpu, vlr.irq);
>>> I wonder if it's safe to rely on that mapping here. Are we sure that
>>> this hasn't changed while the VCPU was running? If I got this correctly,
>>> currently only vcpu_reset will actually add a map entry, but I guess in
>>> the future there will be more users.
>> How can the guest interrupt change? This is HW, as far as the guest is
>> concerned. An actual interrupt line. We don't reconfigure the HW live.
> I was thinking about the rbtree mapping we introduced. There we map a
> guest interrupt to a hardware interrupt. Are we sure that no one tears
> down that mapping while we have an LR populated with this pair?
> I am not talking about the timer here, but more about future users.
>>> Also we rely on the irqdomain mapping to be still the same, but that is
>>> probably a safe assumption.
>> Like I said before, this *cannot* change.
> OK, got it.
>>> But I'd still find it more natural to use the hwirq number from the LR
>>> at this point. Can't we use irq_find_mapping() here to learn Linux'
>>> (current) irq number from that?
>> I think you're confused.
>> - The guest irq (vlr.irq) is entirely made up, and has no connection
>> with reality. it is stable, and cannot change during the lifetime of the
>> guest (think of it as a HW irq line).
>> - The host hwirq (vlr.hwirq) is stable as well, for the same reason.
>> - The Linux IRQ cannot change because we've been given it by the kernel,
>> and that's what we use for *everything* as far as the kernel is
>> concerned. Its mapping to hwirq is stable as well because this is how we
>> talk to the HW.
> Not disputing any of them, but:
>> - irq_find_mapping gives you the *reverse* mapping (from hwirq to Linux
>> irq), and for that to work, you need the domain on which you want to
>> apply the translation. This is only useful when actually taking the
>> interrupt (i.e. in an interrupt controller driver). I can't see how that
>> could make sense here.
> So if the guest has acked/EOIed it's IRQ, the GIC at the same time
> acked/EOIed the hardware IRQ it found in the LR. Now we assume that this
> is the very same as the HW IRQ we found doing our rbtree traversal.
> I just wanted to be sure that this is always true and that this mapping
> didn't change while the VCPU was running.
> If you are sure of this, fine, I was just concerned that someone breaks
> this assumption in the future by more dynamically mapping/unmapping
> entries (say some irq forwarding user) and we will not notice.
How can the mapping change? Are you thinking of an unmap/map operation
being done while the guest is running, replacing a HW device with
another? That's not an option, and not only for the interrupts.
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
More information about the linux-arm-kernel