On 23/05/17 08:22, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 22/05/2017 19:52, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 18/05/17 08:41, Auger Eric wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> On 03/05/2017 12:45, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> Add a handler for reading the guest's view of the ICC_IAR1_EL1
>>>> register. This involves finding the highest priority Group-1
>>>> interrupt, checking against both PMR and the active group
>>>> priority, activating the interrupt and setting the group
>>>> priority as active.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h | 1 +
>>>> virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c | 134
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 135 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
>>>> b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
>>>> index 97cbca19430d..7610ea4e8337 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
>>>> @@ -391,6 +391,7 @@
>>>> #define ICH_LR_PHYS_ID_SHIFT 32
>>>> #define ICH_LR_PHYS_ID_MASK (0x3ffULL <<
>>>> ICH_LR_PHYS_ID_SHIFT)
>>>> #define ICH_LR_PRIORITY_SHIFT 48
>>>> +#define ICH_LR_PRIORITY_MASK (0xffULL <<
>>>> ICH_LR_PRIORITY_SHIFT)
>>>>
>>>> /* These are for GICv2 emulation only */
>>>> #define GICH_LR_VIRTUALID (0x3ffUL << 0)
>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c b/virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c
>>>> index 473ef22508e6..49aad1de3ac8 100644
>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c
>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c
>>>> @@ -375,6 +375,77 @@ void __hyp_text __vgic_v3_write_vmcr(u32 vmcr)
>>>>
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
>>>>
>>>> +static int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_get_group(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u32 esr = kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu);
>>>> + u8 crm = (esr & ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_CRM_MASK) >>
>>>> ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_CRM_SHIFT;
>>>> +
>>>> + return crm != 8;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +#define GICv3_IDLE_PRIORITY 0xff
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_highest_priority_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>> + u32 vmcr,
>>>> + u64 *lr_val)
>>>> +{
>>>> + unsigned int used_lrs = vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.used_lrs;
>>>> + u8 priority = GICv3_IDLE_PRIORITY;
>>>> + int i, lr = -1;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < used_lrs; i++) {
>>>> + u64 val = __gic_v3_get_lr(i);
>>>> + u8 lr_prio = (val & ICH_LR_PRIORITY_MASK) >>
>>>> ICH_LR_PRIORITY_SHIFT;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Not pending in the state? */
>>>> + if ((val & ICH_LR_STATE) != ICH_LR_PENDING_BIT)
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Group-0 interrupt, but Group-0 disabled? */
>>>> + if (!(val & ICH_LR_GROUP) && !(vmcr & ICH_VMCR_ENG0_MASK))
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Group-1 interrupt, but Group-1 disabled? */
>>>> + if ((val & ICH_LR_GROUP) && !(vmcr & ICH_VMCR_ENG1_MASK))
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Not the highest priority? */
>>>> + if (lr_prio >= priority)
>>>> + continue;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* This is a candidate */
>>>> + priority = lr_prio;
>>>> + *lr_val = val;
>>>> + lr = i;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (lr == -1)
>>>> + *lr_val = ICC_IAR1_EL1_SPURIOUS;
>>>> +
>>>> + return lr;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_get_highest_active_priority(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u8 nr_pre_bits = vtr_to_nr_pre_bits(read_gicreg(ICH_VTR_EL2));
>>>> + u8 nr_aprs = 1 << (nr_pre_bits - 5);
>>> s/nr_aprs/nr_apr_regs ?
>>
>> Sure, I can do that if that helps.
>>
>>>> + u32 hap = 0;
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_aprs; i++) {
>>>> + u32 val;
>>>> +
>>>> + val = __vgic_v3_read_ap0rn(i);
>>>> + val |= __vgic_v3_read_ap1rn(i);
>>>> + if (val)
>>>> + return (hap + __ffs(val)) << (8 - nr_pre_bits);
>>> here don't we need to shift by the actual number of subpriority bits?
>>> isn't nr_pre_bits the max implemented preemption bits but not
>>> necessarily the actual chosen number set by bpr?
>>
>> Hmmm. I don't think that works. If you did that, you could end-up in a
>> bizarre situation where you can completely miss the current active
>> priority. Try for example:
>>
>> nr_pre_bits=5
>> set BPR1=3 (5 preemption bits)
>> read IAR, interrupt priority = 0x10, set bit 2 in AP1R0
>> set BPR=4 (4 preemption bits)
>>
>> With this setting, you've changed the active priority from being 0x10
>> (with BPR1=3) to being 8. This is wrong, as this should be an invariant.
>>
>> The only way to avoid this unfortunate state of affair is to always
>> normalize the active priority to always be stored as if BPR had its
>> smallest possible value (which happens to be nr_pre_bits).
>
> Hum ok. I get your point now and that looks correct to me too. Maybe a
> small comment for subsequent readers would avoid the same question.
Definitely. This whole thing gives me headaches each time I have to look
at it again.
>>>> +
>>>> + hap += 32;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return GICv3_IDLE_PRIORITY;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static unsigned int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_get_bpr0(u32 vmcr)
>>>> {
>>>> return (vmcr & ICH_VMCR_BPR0_MASK) >> ICH_VMCR_BPR0_SHIFT;
>>>> @@ -395,6 +466,66 @@ static unsigned int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_get_bpr1(u32
>>>> vmcr)
>>>> return bpr;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>> Would be nice to have a short doc comment.
>>> I understand this zeros the subpriority field in the priority value, is
>>> it correct? pseudocode PriorityGroup()?
>>
>> Yes, I should probably add some references to the pseudocode.
>>
>>>> +static u8 __hyp_text __vgic_v3_pri_to_pre(u8 pri, u32 vmcr, int grp)
>>>> +{
>>>> + unsigned int bpr;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!grp)
>>>> + bpr = __vgic_v3_get_bpr0(vmcr) + 1;
>>>> + else
>>>> + bpr = __vgic_v3_get_bpr1(vmcr);
>>>> +
>>>> + return pri & (GENMASK(7, 0) << bpr);
>>> & GENMASK(7, bpr)?
>>
>> Not sure about that. If grp==0, bpr can range from 1 to 8. If it is 8,
>> what is the meaning of GENMASK(7,8)?
>
> OK forget it ;-)
>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static void __hyp_text __vgic_v3_set_active_priority(u8 pre)
>>>> +{
>>>> + u8 nr_pre_bits = vtr_to_nr_pre_bits(read_gicreg(ICH_VTR_EL2));
>>>> + u8 hap = pre >> (8 - nr_pre_bits);
>>> Could you add a comment about what is hap. I tend to think it is the
>>> group priority but then I don't get why we don't shift by 8 -bpr
>>
>> "hap" stands for Highest Active Priority. And for the reasons describer
>> above, we need to normalize it, irrespective of the BPR.
>>
>> Does it make sense?
>
> yes it does.
>
> So Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
Thanks Eric!
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
