[RFC v2 0/9] KVM-VFIO IRQ forward control

[Alex Williamson]

On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 14:52 +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
> This RFC proposes an integration of "ARM: Forwarding physical
> interrupts to a guest VM" (http://lwn.net/Articles/603514/) in
> KVM.
> 
> It enables to transform a VFIO platform driver IRQ into a forwarded
> IRQ. The direct benefit is that, for a level sensitive IRQ, a VM
> switch can be avoided on guest virtual IRQ completion. Before this
> patch, a maintenance IRQ was triggered on the virtual IRQ completion.
> 
> When the IRQ is forwarded, the VFIO platform driver does not need to
> disable the IRQ anymore. Indeed when returning from the IRQ handler
> the IRQ is not deactivated. Only its priority is lowered. This means
> the same IRQ cannot hit before the guest completes the virtual IRQ
> and the GIC automatically deactivates the corresponding physical IRQ.
> 
> Besides, the injection still is based on irqfd triggering. The only
> impact on irqfd process is resamplefd is not called anymore on
> virtual IRQ completion since this latter becomes "transparent".
> 
> The current integration is based on an extension of the KVM-VFIO
> device, previously used by KVM to interact with VFIO groups. The
> patch serie now enables KVM to directly interact with a VFIO
> platform device. The VFIO external API was extended for that purpose.
> 
> Th KVM-VFIO device can get/put the vfio platform device, check its
> integrity and type, get the IRQ number associated to an IRQ index.
> 
> The IRQ forward programming is architecture specific (virtual interrupt
> controller programming basically). However the whole infrastructure is
> kept generic.
> 
> from a user point of view, the functionality is provided through new
> KVM-VFIO device commands, KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_(UN)FORWARD_IRQ
> and the capability can be checked with KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR.
> Assignment can only be changed when the physical IRQ is not active.
> It is the responsability of the user to do this check.
> 
> This patch serie has the following dependencies:
> - "ARM: Forwarding physical interrupts to a guest VM"
>   (http://lwn.net/Articles/603514/) in
> - [PATCH v3] irqfd for ARM
> - and obviously the VFIO platform driver serie:
>   [RFC PATCH v6 00/20] VFIO support for platform devices on ARM
>   https://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@vger.kernel.org/msg103247.html
> 
> Integrated pieces can be found at
> ssh://git.linaro.org/people/eric.auger/linux.git
> on branch 3.17rc3_irqfd_forward_integ_v2
> 
> This was was tested on Calxeda Midway, assigning the xgmac main IRQ.
> 
> v1 -> v2:
> - forward control is moved from architecture specific file into generic
>   vfio.c module.
>   only kvm_arch_set_fwd_state remains architecture specific
> - integrate Kim's patch which enables KVM-VFIO for ARM
> - fix vgic state bypass in vgic_queue_hwirq
> - struct kvm_arch_forwarded_irq moved from arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>   to include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>   also irq_index renamed into index and guest_irq renamed into gsi
> - ASSIGN/DEASSIGN renamed into FORWARD/UNFORWARD
> - vfio_external_get_base_device renamed into vfio_external_base_device
> - vfio_external_get_type removed
> - kvm_vfio_external_get_base_device renamed into kvm_vfio_external_base_device
> - __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO renamed into __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD
> 
> Eric Auger (8):
>   KVM: ARM: VGIC: fix multiple injection of level sensitive forwarded
>     IRQ
>   KVM: ARM: VGIC: add forwarded irq rbtree lock
>   VFIO: platform: handler tests whether the IRQ is forwarded
>   KVM: KVM-VFIO: update user API to program forwarded IRQ
>   VFIO: Extend external user API
>   KVM: KVM-VFIO: add new VFIO external API hooks
>   KVM: KVM-VFIO: generic KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE command and IRQ forwarding
>     control
>   KVM: KVM-VFIO: ARM forwarding control
> 
> Kim Phillips (1):
>   ARM: KVM: Enable the KVM-VFIO device
> 
>  Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/vfio.txt |  26 ++
>  arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h            |   7 +
>  arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig                       |   1 +
>  arch/arm/kvm/Makefile                      |   4 +-
>  arch/arm/kvm/kvm_vfio_arm.c                |  85 +++++
>  drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c  |   7 +-
>  drivers/vfio/vfio.c                        |  24 ++
>  include/kvm/arm_vgic.h                     |   1 +
>  include/linux/kvm_host.h                   |  27 ++
>  include/linux/vfio.h                       |   3 +
>  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h                   |   9 +
>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c                        |  59 +++-
>  virt/kvm/vfio.c                            | 497 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  13 files changed, 733 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/kvm/kvm_vfio_arm.c
> 

Have we ventured too far in the other direction?  I suppose what I was
hoping to see was something more like:

	case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_FORWARD_IRQ:{

		/* get vfio_device */

		/* get mutex */

		/* verify device+irq isn't already forwarded */

		/* allocate device/forwarded irq */

		/* get struct device */

		/* callout to arch code passing struct device, gsi, ... */

		/* if success, add to kv, else free and error */

		/* mutex unlock */
	}

Exposing the internal mutex out to arch code, as in v1, was an
indication that we were pushing too much out to arch code, but including
platform_device.h into virt/kvm/vfio.c tells me we're still not
abstracting at the right point.  Thanks,

Alex