On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 06:26:44PM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote:
> To change the active state of an MMIO, halt is requested for all vcpus of
> the affected guest before modifying the IRQ state. This is done by calling
> cond_resched_lock() in vgic_mmio_change_active(). However interrupts are
> disabled at this point and we cannot reschedule a vcpu.
>
> Solve this by waiting for all vcpus to be halted after emmiting the halt
> request.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thie...@arm.com>
> Suggested-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.d...@arm.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c | 36 ++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> index f56ff1c..5c76a92 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> @@ -313,27 +313,6 @@ static void vgic_mmio_change_active(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, struct vgic_irq *irq,
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->irq_lock, flags);
>
> - /*
> - * If this virtual IRQ was written into a list register, we
> - * have to make sure the CPU that runs the VCPU thread has
> - * synced back the LR state to the struct vgic_irq.
> - *
> - * As long as the conditions below are true, we know the VCPU thread
> - * may be on its way back from the guest (we kicked the VCPU thread in
> - * vgic_change_active_prepare) and still has to sync back this IRQ,
> - * so we release and re-acquire the spin_lock to let the other thread
> - * sync back the IRQ.
> - *
> - * When accessing VGIC state from user space, requester_vcpu is
> - * NULL, which is fine, because we guarantee that no VCPUs are running
> - * when accessing VGIC state from user space so irq->vcpu->cpu is
> - * always -1.
> - */
> - while (irq->vcpu && /* IRQ may have state in an LR somewhere */
> - irq->vcpu != requester_vcpu && /* Current thread is not the VCPU
> thread */
> - irq->vcpu->cpu != -1) /* VCPU thread is running */
> - cond_resched_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
> -
> if (irq->hw) {
> vgic_hw_irq_change_active(vcpu, irq, active, !requester_vcpu);
> } else {
> @@ -368,8 +347,21 @@ static void vgic_mmio_change_active(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu, struct vgic_irq *irq,
> */
> static void vgic_change_active_prepare(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid)
> {
> - if (intid > VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> + if (intid > VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS) {
> + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp;
> + int i;
> +
> kvm_arm_halt_guest(vcpu->kvm);
> +
> + /* Wait for each vcpu to be halted */
> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) {
> + if (tmp == vcpu)
> + continue;
> +
> + while (tmp->cpu != -1)
> + cond_resched();
> + }
I'm actually thinking we don't need this loop at all after the requet
rework which causes:
1. kvm_arm_halt_guest() to use kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_SLEEP),
and
2. KVM_REQ_SLEEP uses REQ_WAIT, and
3. REQ_WAIT requires the VCPU to respond to IPIs before returning, and
4. a VCPU thread can only respond when it enables interrupt, and
5. enabling interrupts when running a VCPU only happens after syncing
the VGIC hwstate.
Does that make sense?
It would be good if someone can validate this, but if it holds this
patch just becomes a nice deletion of the logic in
vgic-mmio_change_active.
Thanks,
Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
