[v2 3/6] KVM: arm64: Support pvlock preempted via shared structure
Usama Arif
usama.arif at bytedance.com
Mon Nov 7 10:09:13 PST 2022
On 07/11/2022 18:02, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Usama Arif <usama.arif at bytedance.com> writes:
>
>> Implement the service call for configuring a shared structure between a
>> VCPU and the hypervisor in which the hypervisor can tell whether the
>> VCPU is running or not.
>>
>> The preempted field is zero if the VCPU is not preempted.
>> Any other value means the VCPU has been preempted.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zengruan Ye <yezengruan at huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif at bytedance.com>
>> ---
>> Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst | 3 ++
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 18 ++++++++++
>> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 1 +
>> arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile | 2 +-
>> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 8 +++++
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 8 +++++
>> arch/arm64/kvm/pvlock.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tools/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 1 +
>> 8 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/pvlock.c
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst
>> index 3e23084644ba..872a16226ace 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst
>> @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ The pseudo-firmware bitmap register are as follows:
>> Bit-1: KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_PTP:
>> The bit represents the Precision Time Protocol KVM service.
>>
>> + Bit-2: KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_PV_LOCK:
>> + The bit represents the Paravirtualized lock service.
>> +
>> Errors:
>>
>> ======= =============================================================
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 45e2136322ba..18303b30b7e9 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -417,6 +417,11 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>> u64 last_steal;
>> gpa_t base;
>> } steal;
>> +
>> + /* Guest PV lock state */
>> + struct {
>> + gpa_t base;
>> + } pv;
>
> Using "pv" for the structure isn't quite describing the usage well. It'd
> be better to call it "pv_lock" or "pvlock" at the least.
>
Yes makes sense, will change in next patchset, Thanks.
> [...]
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list