On 01.09.25 21:00, Leonid Komarianskyi wrote:
Hello Oleksandr,
Hello Leonid
Thank you for your review. On 31.08.25 18:58, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:On 29.08.25 23:45, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: Hello Leonid, VolodymyrHi Leonid, Leonid Komarianskyi <leonid_komarians...@epam.com> writes:This change introduces resource management in the VGIC to handle extended SPIs introduced in GICv3.1. The pending_irqs and allocated_irqs arrays are resized to support the required number of eSPIs, based on what is supported by the hardware and requested by the guest. A new field, ext_shared_irqs, is added to the VGIC structure to store information about eSPIs, similar to how shared_irqs is used for regular SPIs. Since the eSPI range starts at INTID 4096 and INTIDs between 1025 and 4095 are reserved, helper macros are introduced to simplify the transformation of indices and to enable easier access to eSPI-specific resources. These changes prepare the VGIC for processing eSPIs as required by future functionality. The initialization and deinitialization paths for vgic have been updated to allocate and free these resources appropriately. Additionally, updated handling of INTIDs greater than 1024, passed from the toolstack during domain creation, and verification logic ensures only valid SPI or eSPI INTIDs are used. The existing SPI behavior remains unaffected when guests do not request eSPIs, GIC hardware does not support them, or the CONFIG_GICV3_ESPI option is disabled. Signed-off-by: Leonid Komarianskyi <leonid_komarians...@epam.com> --- Changes in V5: - removed the has_espi field because it can be determined by checking whether domain->arch.vgic.nr_espis is zero or not - since vgic_ext_rank_offset is not used in this patch, it has been moved to the appropriate patch in the patch series, which implements vgic eSPI registers emulation and requires this function - removed ifdefs for eSPI-specific macros to reduce the number of ifdefs and code duplication in further changes - fixed minor nit: used %pd for printing domain with its ID@Leonid, thanks for optimizing the series, now it looks much better (the number of #ifdef-s is reduced, code is reused).I am doing my best, and you and the other reviewers are helping me improve the code. Thank you for that!Changes in V4: - added has_espi field to simplify determining whether a domain is able to operate with eSPI - fixed formatting issues and misspellings Changes in V3: - fixed formatting for lines with more than 80 symbols - introduced helper functions to be able to use stubs in case of CONFIG_GICV3_ESPI disabled, and as a result, reduce the number of #ifdefs - fixed checks for nr_spis in domain_vgic_init - updated comment about nr_spis adjustments with dom0less mention - moved comment with additional explanations before checks - used unsigned int for indexes since they cannot be negative - removed unnecessary parentheses - move vgic_ext_rank_offset to the below ifdef guard, to reduce the number of ifdefs Changes in V2: - change is_espi_rank to is_valid_espi_rank to verify whether the array element ext_shared_irqs exists. The previous version, is_espi_rank, only checked if the rank index was less than the maximum possible eSPI rank index, but this could potentially result in accessing a non-existing array element. To address this, is_valid_espi_rank was introduced, which ensures that the required eSPI rank exists - move gic_number_espis to xen/arm: gicv3: implement handling of GICv3.1 eSPI - update vgic_is_valid_irq checks to allow operating with eSPIs - remove redundant newline in vgic_allocate_virq --- xen/arch/arm/include/asm/vgic.h | 12 ++ xen/arch/arm/vgic.c | 199 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/vgic.h b/xen/arch/arm/include/ asm/vgic.h index 3e7cbbb196..912d5b7694 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/vgic.h +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/vgic.h @@ -146,6 +146,10 @@ struct vgic_dist { int nr_spis; /* Number of SPIs */ unsigned long *allocated_irqs; /* bitmap of IRQs allocated */ struct vgic_irq_rank *shared_irqs; +#ifdef CONFIG_GICV3_ESPI + struct vgic_irq_rank *ext_shared_irqs; + int nr_espis; /* Number of extended SPIs */It seems you have agreed (V4) that nr_espis could not be negative.I appologize for that, I missed this change. I will fix it in V6.
everything is fine, no need to apologize
+#endif /* * SPIs are domain global, SGIs and PPIs are per-VCPU and stored in * struct arch_vcpu. @@ -243,6 +247,14 @@ struct vgic_ops { /* Number of ranks of interrupt registers for a domain */ #define DOMAIN_NR_RANKS(d) (((d)->arch.vgic.nr_spis+31)/32) +#ifdef CONFIG_GICV3_ESPI +#define DOMAIN_NR_EXT_RANKS(d) (((d)->arch.vgic.nr_espis+31)/32) +#endif +#define EXT_RANK_MIN (ESPI_BASE_INTID/32) +#define EXT_RANK_MAX ((ESPI_MAX_INTID+31)/32) +#define EXT_RANK_NUM2IDX(num) ((num)-EXT_RANK_MIN) +#define EXT_RANK_IDX2NUM(idx) ((idx)+EXT_RANK_MIN) + #define vgic_lock(v) spin_lock_irq(&(v)->domain->arch.vgic.lock) #define vgic_unlock(v) spin_unlock_irq(&(v)->domain->arch.vgic.lock) diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c index 2bbf4d99aa..c9b9528c66 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c @@ -27,9 +27,82 @@ bool vgic_is_valid_line(struct domain *d, unsigned int virq) { +#ifdef CONFIG_GICV3_ESPI + if ( virq >= ESPI_BASE_INTID && + virq < ESPI_IDX2INTID(d->arch.vgic.nr_espis) ) + return true; +#endif + return virq < vgic_num_irqs(d); } +#ifdef CONFIG_GICV3_ESPI +/* + * Since eSPI indexes start from 4096 and numbers from 1024 to + * 4095 are forbidden, we need to check both lower and upper + * limits for ranks. + */ +static inline bool is_valid_espi_rank(struct domain *d, unsigned int rank) +{ + return rank >= EXT_RANK_MIN && + EXT_RANK_NUM2IDX(rank) < DOMAIN_NR_EXT_RANKS(d); +} + +static inline struct vgic_irq_rank *vgic_get_espi_rank(struct vcpu *v, + unsigned int rank) +{ + return &v->domain-arch.vgic.ext_shared_irqs[EXT_RANK_NUM2IDX(rank)];+} + +static inline bool vgic_reserve_espi_virq(struct domain *d, unsigned int virq) +{ + return !test_and_set_bit(ESPI_INTID2IDX(virq) + vgic_num_irqs(d), + d->arch.vgic.allocated_irqs); +} + +static void arch_move_espis(struct vcpu *v)I don't need you need a copy of arch_move_irqs(). Se below for more info.+{ + const cpumask_t *cpu_mask = cpumask_of(v->processor); + struct domain *d = v->domain; + struct pending_irq *p; + struct vcpu *v_target; + unsigned int i; + + for ( i = ESPI_BASE_INTID; + i < EXT_RANK_IDX2NUM(d->arch.vgic.nr_espis); i++ ) + { + v_target = vgic_get_target_vcpu(v, i); + p = irq_to_pending(v_target, i); + + if ( v_target == v && !test_bit(GIC_IRQ_GUEST_MIGRATING, &p-status) )+ irq_set_affinity(p->desc, cpu_mask); + } +} +#else +static inline bool is_valid_espi_rank(struct domain *d, unsigned int rank) +{ + return false; +} + +/* + * This function is stub and will not be called if CONFIG_GICV3_ESPI=n, + * because in this case, is_valid_espi_rank will always return false. + */ +static inline struct vgic_irq_rank *vgic_get_espi_rank(struct vcpu *v, + unsigned int rank) +{ + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(); + return NULL; +} + +static inline bool vgic_reserve_espi_virq(struct domain *d, unsigned int virq) +{ + return false; +} + +static void arch_move_espis(struct vcpu *v) { } +#endif + static inline struct vgic_irq_rank *vgic_get_rank(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int rank) { @@ -37,6 +110,8 @@ static inline struct vgic_irq_rank *vgic_get_rank(struct vcpu *v, return v->arch.vgic.private_irqs; else if ( rank <= DOMAIN_NR_RANKS(v->domain) ) return &v->domain->arch.vgic.shared_irqs[rank - 1]; + else if ( is_valid_espi_rank(v->domain, rank) ) + return vgic_get_espi_rank(v, rank); else return NULL; } @@ -117,6 +192,62 @@ int domain_vgic_register(struct domain *d, unsigned int *mmio_count) return 0; } +#ifdef CONFIG_GICV3_ESPI +static unsigned int vgic_num_spi_lines(struct domain *d) +{ + return d->arch.vgic.nr_spis + d->arch.vgic.nr_espis; +} + +static int init_vgic_espi(struct domain *d) +{ + unsigned int i, idx; + + if ( d->arch.vgic.nr_espis == 0 ) + return 0; + + d->arch.vgic.ext_shared_irqs = + xzalloc_array(struct vgic_irq_rank, DOMAIN_NR_EXT_RANKS(d)); + if ( d->arch.vgic.ext_shared_irqs == NULL ) + return -ENOMEM; + + for ( i = d->arch.vgic.nr_spis, idx = 0; + i < vgic_num_spi_lines(d); i++, idx++ ) + vgic_init_pending_irq(&d->arch.vgic.pending_irqs[i], + ESPI_IDX2INTID(idx)); + + for ( i = 0; i < DOMAIN_NR_EXT_RANKS(d); i++ ) + vgic_rank_init(&d->arch.vgic.ext_shared_irqs[i], i, 0); + + return 0; +} + +struct pending_irq *espi_to_pending(struct domain *d, unsigned int irq)I know that I should made this observation in previous version, but I didn't, sorry for that. Anyways, I don't think that this is a good idea to introduce this function and vgic_reserve_espi_virq(), as well as arch_move_espis(), actually, because in each case this is a code duplication, which is not good. I think that instead you need to introduce a pair of helpers that will map any (e)SPI number to pending_irq[]/allocate_irqs index and back. somethink like static inline unsigned virq_to_index(int virq) { if (is_espi(virq)) return ESPI_INTID2IDX(irq) + d->arch.vgic.nr_spis; return virq; } See below for examples.+{ + irq = ESPI_INTID2IDX(irq) + d->arch.vgic.nr_spis; + return &d->arch.vgic.pending_irqs[irq]; +} +#else +static unsigned int init_vgic_espi(struct domain *d) +{ + return 0; +} + +static unsigned int vgic_num_spi_lines(struct domain *d) +{ + return d->arch.vgic.nr_spis; +} + +struct pending_irq *espi_to_pending(struct domain *d, unsigned int irq) +{ + return NULL; +} +#endif + +static unsigned int vgic_num_alloc_irqs(struct domain *d) +{ + return vgic_num_spi_lines(d) + NR_LOCAL_IRQS; +}I do not know where it would be better to put a comment related to non- visible in the patch context route_irq_to_guest(), but put it here. I am afraid, the vgic_num_irqs(d) printed in the following error message is not entirely correct with your changes: route_irq_to_guest(): ... if ( !vgic_is_valid_line(d, virq) ) { printk(XENLOG_G_ERR "the vIRQ number %u is too high for domain %u (max = %u)\n", irq, d->domain_id, vgic_num_irqs(d)); return -EINVAL; }Would it be okay to change the error message to something like: "invalid vIRQ number %u for domain %pd\n" I understand that it is a more generic error message, but I think it might become overly complicated if I add more information stating that the IRQ should be within the range 0...vgic_num_irqs(d) or 4096...ESPI_IDX2INTID(d->arch.vgic.nr_espis).
I see, so it would not be precise to just let's say print vgic_num_irqs(d) or ESPI_IDX2INTID(d->arch.vgic.nr_espis) as "(max = %u)" since the vIRQ range is not contiguous.
Well, removing extra information (max) that could help the user to figure out what was wrong is not ideal, but if you think it would overcomplicate things, then I (not a maintainer of this code) would be okay with the proposed simplified error message.
