[PATCH v2 7/8] arm/arm64: KVM: Rework the arch timer to use level-triggered semantics
Christoffer Dall
christoffer.dall at linaro.org
Tue Sep 29 07:30:46 PDT 2015
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 06:44:21PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi Christoffer,
>
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > index 9ed8d53..f4ea950 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > @@ -1422,34 +1422,43 @@ static bool vgic_process_maintenance(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > /*
> > * Save the physical active state, and reset it to inactive.
> > *
> > - * Return 1 if HW interrupt went from active to inactive, and 0 otherwise.
> > + * Return true if there's a pending level triggered interrupt line to queue.
> > */
> > -static int vgic_sync_hwirq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> > +static bool vgic_sync_hwirq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int lr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> > {
> > struct irq_phys_map *map;
> > + bool phys_active;
> > int ret;
> >
> > if (!(vlr.state & LR_HW))
> > return 0;
> >
> > map = vgic_irq_map_search(vcpu, vlr.irq);
> > - BUG_ON(!map || !map->active);
> > + BUG_ON(!map);
> >
> > ret = irq_get_irqchip_state(map->irq,
> > IRQCHIP_STATE_ACTIVE,
> > - &map->active);
> > + &phys_active);
> >
> > WARN_ON(ret);
> >
> > - if (map->active) {
> > + if (phys_active) {
> > + /*
> > + * Interrupt still marked as active on the physical
> > + * distributor, so guest did not EOI it yet. Reset to
> > + * non-active so that other VMs can see interrupts from this
> > + * device.
> > + */
> > ret = irq_set_irqchip_state(map->irq,
> > IRQCHIP_STATE_ACTIVE,
> > false);
> > WARN_ON(ret);
> > - return 0;
> > + return false;
> > }
> >
> > - return 1;
> > + /* Mapped edge-triggered interrupts not yet supported. */
> > + WARN_ON(vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, vlr.irq));
> > + return process_level_irq(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>
> Don't you miss the dist->lock here? The other call to
> process_level_irq() certainly does it, and Eric recently removed the
> coarse grained lock around the whole __kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate() function.
> So we don't hold the lock here, but we change quite some common VGIC
> state in there.
>
Indeed I think we should.
I'll fix that for the next revision.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list