| Message ID | 20180305160415.16760-30-andre.przywara@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | New VGIC(-v2) implementation | expand |
Hi Andre, Overall this patch looks good. Few comments below. On 03/05/2018 04:03 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: > +/* > + * Only valid injection if changing level for level-triggered IRQs or for a > + * rising edge. > + */ > +static bool vgic_validate_injection(struct vgic_irq *irq, bool level) > +{ > + if ( irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_LEVEL ) > + return irq->line_level != level; > + > + return level; TBH, I would have preferred to keep the switch here. It was much clearer the second case is for edge. I would be ok with the if providing comment explaining "return level" is for edge. > +} > + > +/** > + * vgic_queue_irq_unlock() - Queue an IRQ to a VCPU, to be injected to a guest. > + * @d: The domain the virtual IRQ belongs to. > + * @irq: A pointer to the vgic_irq of the virtual IRQ, with the lock held. > + * @flags: The flags used when having grabbed the IRQ lock. > + * > + * Check whether an IRQ needs to (and can) be queued to a VCPU's ap list. > + * Do the queuing if necessary, taking the right locks in the right order. > + * > + * Needs to be entered with the IRQ lock already held, but will return > + * with all locks dropped. > + * > + * Returns: True when the IRQ was queued, false otherwise. The function is now returning void. It sounds like a left-over from the previous version? > + */ > +void vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq, > + unsigned long flags) > +{ [...] > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h > index a3befd386b..3430955d9f 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h > @@ -17,9 +17,19 @@ > #ifndef __XEN_ARM_VGIC_VGIC_H__ > #define __XEN_ARM_VGIC_VGIC_H__ > > +static inline bool irq_is_pending(struct vgic_irq *irq) > +{ > + if ( irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_EDGE ) > + return irq->pending_latch; > + else > + return irq->pending_latch || irq->line_level; > +} > + > struct vgic_irq *vgic_get_irq(struct domain *d, struct vcpu *vcpu, > u32 intid); > void vgic_put_irq(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq); > +void vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq, > + unsigned long flags); The indentation looks wrong here. > > static inline void vgic_get_irq_kref(struct vgic_irq *irq) > { > Cheers,
Hi, On 07/03/18 11:02, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Andre, > > Overall this patch looks good. Few comments below. > > On 03/05/2018 04:03 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: >> +/* >> + * Only valid injection if changing level for level-triggered IRQs or >> for a >> + * rising edge. >> + */ >> +static bool vgic_validate_injection(struct vgic_irq *irq, bool level) >> +{ >> + if ( irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_LEVEL ) >> + return irq->line_level != level; >> + >> + return level; > > TBH, I would have preferred to keep the switch here. It was much clearer > the second case is for edge. I would be ok with the if providing comment > explaining "return level" is for edge. I see what you mean, and actually had it first this way, but: vgic/vgic.c:250:14: error: switch condition has boolean value [-Werror=switch-bool] switch ( irq->config ) I will add comments to document both cases. >> +} >> + >> +/** >> + * vgic_queue_irq_unlock() - Queue an IRQ to a VCPU, to be injected >> to a guest. >> + * @d: The domain the virtual IRQ belongs to. >> + * @irq: A pointer to the vgic_irq of the virtual IRQ, with the >> lock held. >> + * @flags: The flags used when having grabbed the IRQ lock. >> + * >> + * Check whether an IRQ needs to (and can) be queued to a VCPU's ap >> list. >> + * Do the queuing if necessary, taking the right locks in the right >> order. >> + * >> + * Needs to be entered with the IRQ lock already held, but will return >> + * with all locks dropped. >> + * >> + * Returns: True when the IRQ was queued, false otherwise. > > The function is now returning void. It sounds like a left-over from the > previous version? True, thanks for catching this. >> + */ >> +void vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq, >> + unsigned long flags) >> +{ > > [...] > >> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h >> index a3befd386b..3430955d9f 100644 >> --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h >> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h >> @@ -17,9 +17,19 @@ >> #ifndef __XEN_ARM_VGIC_VGIC_H__ >> #define __XEN_ARM_VGIC_VGIC_H__ >> +static inline bool irq_is_pending(struct vgic_irq *irq) >> +{ >> + if ( irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_EDGE ) >> + return irq->pending_latch; >> + else >> + return irq->pending_latch || irq->line_level; >> +} >> + >> struct vgic_irq *vgic_get_irq(struct domain *d, struct vcpu *vcpu, >> u32 intid); >> void vgic_put_irq(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq); >> +void vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq, >> + unsigned long flags); > > The indentation looks wrong here. Hah, you found the one ;-) It's a shame we don't have checkpatch, as those things are caught with checkpatch --strict in Linux. Cheers, Andre. > >> static inline void vgic_get_irq_kref(struct vgic_irq *irq) >> { >> > > Cheers, >
Hi Andre, On 03/07/2018 11:22 AM, Andre Przywara wrote: > On 07/03/18 11:02, Julien Grall wrote: >> Overall this patch looks good. Few comments below. >> >> On 03/05/2018 04:03 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: >>> +/* >>> + * Only valid injection if changing level for level-triggered IRQs or >>> for a >>> + * rising edge. >>> + */ >>> +static bool vgic_validate_injection(struct vgic_irq *irq, bool level) >>> +{ >>> + if ( irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_LEVEL ) >>> + return irq->line_level != level; >>> + >>> + return level; >> >> TBH, I would have preferred to keep the switch here. It was much clearer >> the second case is for edge. I would be ok with the if providing comment >> explaining "return level" is for edge. > > I see what you mean, and actually had it first this way, but: > > vgic/vgic.c:250:14: error: switch condition has boolean value > [-Werror=switch-bool] > switch ( irq->config ) What is your compiler version? I am using GCC 6.3 (x86 from Debian) and wasn't able to get the error message in this small snippet: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <stdbool.h> int foo(bool f) { switch (f) { case true: return 1; case false: return 0; } } int main(void) { foo(true); return 0; } 42sh> gcc -Wall -Werror -Wswitch-bool -std=c99 test.c This sounds a bit stupid to me to forbid switch boolean. It sometimes help when using define and more expressive. Sounds like, there was similar discussion on the kernel ML (see [1]). > I will add comments to document both cases. >>> + */ >>> +void vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq, >>> + unsigned long flags) >>> +{ >> >> [...] >> >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h >>> index a3befd386b..3430955d9f 100644 >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h >>> @@ -17,9 +17,19 @@ >>> #ifndef __XEN_ARM_VGIC_VGIC_H__ >>> #define __XEN_ARM_VGIC_VGIC_H__ >>> +static inline bool irq_is_pending(struct vgic_irq *irq) >>> +{ >>> + if ( irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_EDGE ) >>> + return irq->pending_latch; >>> + else >>> + return irq->pending_latch || irq->line_level; >>> +} >>> + >>> struct vgic_irq *vgic_get_irq(struct domain *d, struct vcpu *vcpu, >>> u32 intid); >>> void vgic_put_irq(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq); >>> +void vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq, >>> + unsigned long flags); >> >> The indentation looks wrong here. > > Hah, you found the one ;-) > It's a shame we don't have checkpatch, as those things are caught with > checkpatch --strict in Linux. AFAIK, someone is working on a checkpatch for Xen. Thought I haven't seen anything on xen-devel so far. Hopefully, it will appear soon. > > Cheers, > Andre. > >> >>> static inline void vgic_get_irq_kref(struct vgic_irq *irq) >>> { >>> >> >> Cheers, >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/5/27/941
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c index ace30f78d0..ae922815bd 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c @@ -21,6 +21,31 @@ #include "vgic.h" +/* + * Locking order is always: + * vgic->lock + * vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock + * vgic->lpi_list_lock + * desc->lock + * vgic_irq->irq_lock + * + * If you need to take multiple locks, always take the upper lock first, + * then the lower ones, e.g. first take the ap_list_lock, then the irq_lock. + * If you are already holding a lock and need to take a higher one, you + * have to drop the lower ranking lock first and re-acquire it after having + * taken the upper one. + * + * When taking more than one ap_list_lock at the same time, always take the + * lowest numbered VCPU's ap_list_lock first, so: + * vcpuX->vcpu_id < vcpuY->vcpu_id: + * spin_lock(vcpuX->arch.vgic.ap_list_lock); + * spin_lock(vcpuY->arch.vgic.ap_list_lock); + * + * Since the VGIC must support injecting virtual interrupts from ISRs, we have + * to use the spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore versions of outer + * spinlocks for any lock that may be taken while injecting an interrupt. + */ + /* * Iterate over the VM's list of mapped LPIs to find the one with a * matching interrupt ID and return a reference to the IRQ structure. @@ -114,6 +139,208 @@ void vgic_put_irq(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq) xfree(irq); } +/** + * vgic_target_oracle() - compute the target vcpu for an irq + * @irq: The irq to route. Must be already locked. + * + * Based on the current state of the interrupt (enabled, pending, + * active, vcpu and target_vcpu), compute the next vcpu this should be + * given to. Return NULL if this shouldn't be injected at all. + * + * Requires the IRQ lock to be held. + * + * Returns: The pointer to the virtual CPU this interrupt should be injected + * to. Will be NULL if this IRQ does not need to be injected. + */ +static struct vcpu *vgic_target_oracle(struct vgic_irq *irq) +{ + ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock)); + + /* If the interrupt is active, it must stay on the current vcpu */ + if ( irq->active ) + return irq->vcpu ? : irq->target_vcpu; + + /* + * If the IRQ is not active but enabled and pending, we should direct + * it to its configured target VCPU. + * If the distributor is disabled, pending interrupts shouldn't be + * forwarded. + */ + if ( irq->enabled && irq_is_pending(irq) ) + { + if ( unlikely(irq->target_vcpu && + !irq->target_vcpu->domain->arch.vgic.enabled) ) + return NULL; + + return irq->target_vcpu; + } + + /* + * If neither active nor pending and enabled, then this IRQ should not + * be queued to any VCPU. + */ + return NULL; +} + +/* + * Only valid injection if changing level for level-triggered IRQs or for a + * rising edge. + */ +static bool vgic_validate_injection(struct vgic_irq *irq, bool level) +{ + if ( irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_LEVEL ) + return irq->line_level != level; + + return level; +} + +/** + * vgic_queue_irq_unlock() - Queue an IRQ to a VCPU, to be injected to a guest. + * @d: The domain the virtual IRQ belongs to. + * @irq: A pointer to the vgic_irq of the virtual IRQ, with the lock held. + * @flags: The flags used when having grabbed the IRQ lock. + * + * Check whether an IRQ needs to (and can) be queued to a VCPU's ap list. + * Do the queuing if necessary, taking the right locks in the right order. + * + * Needs to be entered with the IRQ lock already held, but will return + * with all locks dropped. + * + * Returns: True when the IRQ was queued, false otherwise. + */ +void vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq, + unsigned long flags) +{ + struct vcpu *vcpu; + + ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&irq->irq_lock)); + +retry: + vcpu = vgic_target_oracle(irq); + if ( irq->vcpu || !vcpu ) + { + /* + * If this IRQ is already on a VCPU's ap_list, then it + * cannot be moved or modified and there is no more work for + * us to do. + * + * Otherwise, if the irq is not pending and enabled, it does + * not need to be inserted into an ap_list and there is also + * no more work for us to do. + */ + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->irq_lock, flags); + + /* + * We have to kick the VCPU here, because we could be + * queueing an edge-triggered interrupt for which we + * get no EOI maintenance interrupt. In that case, + * while the IRQ is already on the VCPU's AP list, the + * VCPU could have EOI'ed the original interrupt and + * won't see this one until it exits for some other + * reason. + */ + if ( vcpu ) + kick_vcpu(vcpu); + + return; + } + + /* + * We must unlock the irq lock to take the ap_list_lock where + * we are going to insert this new pending interrupt. + */ + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->irq_lock, flags); + + /* someone can do stuff here, which we re-check below */ + + spin_lock_irqsave(&vcpu->arch.vgic.ap_list_lock, flags); + spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock); + + /* + * Did something change behind our backs? + * + * There are two cases: + * 1) The irq lost its pending state or was disabled behind our + * backs and/or it was queued to another VCPU's ap_list. + * 2) Someone changed the affinity on this irq behind our + * backs and we are now holding the wrong ap_list_lock. + * + * In both cases, drop the locks and retry. + */ + + if ( unlikely(irq->vcpu || vcpu != vgic_target_oracle(irq)) ) + { + spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vcpu->arch.vgic.ap_list_lock, flags); + + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->irq_lock, flags); + goto retry; + } + + /* + * Grab a reference to the irq to reflect the fact that it is + * now in the ap_list. + */ + vgic_get_irq_kref(irq); + list_add_tail(&irq->ap_list, &vcpu->arch.vgic.ap_list_head); + irq->vcpu = vcpu; + + spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vcpu->arch.vgic.ap_list_lock, flags); + + kick_vcpu(vcpu); + + return; +} + +/** + * vgic_inject_irq() - Inject an IRQ from a device to the vgic + * @d: The domain pointer + * @vcpu: The vCPU for private IRQs (PPIs, SGIs). Ignored for SPIs and LPIs. + * @intid: The INTID to inject a new state to. + * @level: Edge-triggered: true: to trigger the interrupt + * false: to ignore the call + * Level-sensitive true: raise the input signal + * false: lower the input signal + * + * Injects an instance of the given virtual IRQ into a domain. + * The VGIC is not concerned with devices being active-LOW or active-HIGH for + * level-sensitive interrupts. You can think of the level parameter as 1 + * being HIGH and 0 being LOW and all devices being active-HIGH. + * + * Return: A negative error code if the injection failed, or 0 on success. + */ +int vgic_inject_irq(struct domain *d, struct vcpu *vcpu, unsigned int intid, + bool level) +{ + struct vgic_irq *irq; + unsigned long flags; + + irq = vgic_get_irq(d, vcpu, intid); + if ( !irq ) + return -EINVAL; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->irq_lock, flags); + + if ( !vgic_validate_injection(irq, level) ) + { + /* Nothing to see here, move along... */ + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->irq_lock, flags); + vgic_put_irq(d, irq); + return 0; + } + + if ( irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_LEVEL ) + irq->line_level = level; + else + irq->pending_latch = true; + + vgic_queue_irq_unlock(d, irq, flags); + vgic_put_irq(d, irq); + + return 0; +} + /* * Local variables: * mode: C diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h index a3befd386b..3430955d9f 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h @@ -17,9 +17,19 @@ #ifndef __XEN_ARM_VGIC_VGIC_H__ #define __XEN_ARM_VGIC_VGIC_H__ +static inline bool irq_is_pending(struct vgic_irq *irq) +{ + if ( irq->config == VGIC_CONFIG_EDGE ) + return irq->pending_latch; + else + return irq->pending_latch || irq->line_level; +} + struct vgic_irq *vgic_get_irq(struct domain *d, struct vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid); void vgic_put_irq(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq); +void vgic_queue_irq_unlock(struct domain *d, struct vgic_irq *irq, + unsigned long flags); static inline void vgic_get_irq_kref(struct vgic_irq *irq) {
Provide a vgic_queue_irq_unlock() function which decides whether a given IRQ needs to be queued to a VCPU's ap_list. This should be called whenever an IRQ becomes pending or enabled, either as a result of a hardware IRQ injection, from devices emulated by Xen (like the architected timer) or from MMIO accesses to the distributor emulation. Also provides the necessary functions to allow to inject an IRQ to a guest. Since this is the first code that starts using our locking mechanism, we add some (hopefully) clear documentation of our locking strategy and requirements along with this patch. This is based on Linux commit 81eeb95ddbab, written by Christoffer Dall. Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@linaro.org> --- Changelog RFC ... v1: - fix locking order comment - adapt to former changes - extend comments - use kick_vcpu() xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.c | 227 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ xen/arch/arm/vgic/vgic.h | 10 +++ 2 files changed, 237 insertions(+)