From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 03/15] arm/arm64: KVM: refactor vgic_handle_mmio() function
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:25:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141015162556.GD14272@lvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1408626416-11326-4-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com>
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 02:06:44PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Currently we only need to deal with one MMIO region for the GIC
> emulation, but we soon need to extend this. Refactor the existing
> code to allow easier addition of different ranges without code
> duplication.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index bba8692..3b6f78d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@ -925,37 +925,28 @@ static bool vgic_validate_access(const struct vgic_dist *dist,
> return true;
> }
>
> -/**
> - * vgic_handle_mmio - handle an in-kernel MMIO access
> +/*
> + * vgic_handle_mmio_range - handle an in-kernel MMIO access
> * @vcpu: pointer to the vcpu performing the access
> * @run: pointer to the kvm_run structure
> * @mmio: pointer to the data describing the access
> + * @ranges: pointer to the register defining structure
> + * @mmio_base: base address for this mapping
> *
> - * returns true if the MMIO access has been performed in kernel space,
> - * and false if it needs to be emulated in user space.
> + * returns true if the MMIO access could be performed
> */
> -bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> - struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio)
> +static bool vgic_handle_mmio_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio,
> + const struct mmio_range *ranges,
> + unsigned long mmio_base)
now when we're chopping this up and about to add more logic based on
our struct mmio_range, I think we should really consider getting rid of
that comment abou the kvm_bus_io_*() API or actually use that API.
> {
> const struct mmio_range *range;
> struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
> - unsigned long base = dist->vgic_dist_base;
> bool updated_state;
> unsigned long offset;
>
> - if (!irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm) ||
> - mmio->phys_addr < base ||
> - (mmio->phys_addr + mmio->len) > (base + KVM_VGIC_V2_DIST_SIZE))
> - return false;
> -
> - /* We don't support ldrd / strd or ldm / stm to the emulated vgic */
> - if (mmio->len > 4) {
> - kvm_inject_dabt(vcpu, mmio->phys_addr);
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> - offset = mmio->phys_addr - base;
> - range = find_matching_range(vgic_dist_ranges, mmio, offset);
> + offset = mmio->phys_addr - mmio_base;
> + range = find_matching_range(ranges, mmio, offset);
> if (unlikely(!range || !range->handle_mmio)) {
> pr_warn("Unhandled access %d %08llx %d\n",
> mmio->is_write, mmio->phys_addr, mmio->len);
> @@ -963,7 +954,7 @@ bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> }
>
> spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.lock);
> - offset = mmio->phys_addr - range->base - base;
> + offset -= range->base;
> if (vgic_validate_access(dist, range, offset)) {
> updated_state = range->handle_mmio(vcpu, mmio, offset);
> } else {
> @@ -981,6 +972,45 @@ bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> return true;
> }
>
> +#define IS_IN_RANGE(addr, alen, base, len) \
> + (((addr) >= (base)) && (((addr) + (alen)) < ((base) + (len))))
that should be <= ((base) + (len)) right?
that's a lot of parenthesis, how about creating a static inline instead?
you could also rename alen to access_len
> +
> +static bool vgic_v2_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio)
> +{
> + unsigned long base = vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_dist_base;
> +
> + if (!IS_IN_RANGE(mmio->phys_addr, mmio->len, base,
> + KVM_VGIC_V2_DIST_SIZE))
> + return false;
> +
> + /* GICv2 does not support accesses wider than 32 bits */
> + if (mmio->len > 4) {
> + kvm_inject_dabt(vcpu, mmio->phys_addr);
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + return vgic_handle_mmio_range(vcpu, run, mmio, vgic_dist_ranges, base);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * vgic_handle_mmio - handle an in-kernel MMIO access for the GIC emulation
> + * @vcpu: pointer to the vcpu performing the access
> + * @run: pointer to the kvm_run structure
> + * @mmio: pointer to the data describing the access
> + *
> + * returns true if the MMIO access has been performed in kernel space,
> + * and false if it needs to be emulated in user space.
> + */
> +bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio)
> +{
> + if (!irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm))
> + return false;
> +
> + return vgic_v2_handle_mmio(vcpu, run, mmio);
> +}
> +
> static u8 *vgic_get_sgi_sources(struct vgic_dist *dist, int vcpu_id, int sgi)
> {
> return dist->irq_sgi_sources + vcpu_id * VGIC_NR_SGIS + sgi;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
Thanks,
-Christoffer
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
marc.zyngier@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/15] arm/arm64: KVM: refactor vgic_handle_mmio() function
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 09:25:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141015162556.GD14272@lvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1408626416-11326-4-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com>
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 02:06:44PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Currently we only need to deal with one MMIO region for the GIC
> emulation, but we soon need to extend this. Refactor the existing
> code to allow easier addition of different ranges without code
> duplication.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> ---
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index bba8692..3b6f78d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@ -925,37 +925,28 @@ static bool vgic_validate_access(const struct vgic_dist *dist,
> return true;
> }
>
> -/**
> - * vgic_handle_mmio - handle an in-kernel MMIO access
> +/*
> + * vgic_handle_mmio_range - handle an in-kernel MMIO access
> * @vcpu: pointer to the vcpu performing the access
> * @run: pointer to the kvm_run structure
> * @mmio: pointer to the data describing the access
> + * @ranges: pointer to the register defining structure
> + * @mmio_base: base address for this mapping
> *
> - * returns true if the MMIO access has been performed in kernel space,
> - * and false if it needs to be emulated in user space.
> + * returns true if the MMIO access could be performed
> */
> -bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> - struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio)
> +static bool vgic_handle_mmio_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio,
> + const struct mmio_range *ranges,
> + unsigned long mmio_base)
now when we're chopping this up and about to add more logic based on
our struct mmio_range, I think we should really consider getting rid of
that comment abou the kvm_bus_io_*() API or actually use that API.
> {
> const struct mmio_range *range;
> struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
> - unsigned long base = dist->vgic_dist_base;
> bool updated_state;
> unsigned long offset;
>
> - if (!irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm) ||
> - mmio->phys_addr < base ||
> - (mmio->phys_addr + mmio->len) > (base + KVM_VGIC_V2_DIST_SIZE))
> - return false;
> -
> - /* We don't support ldrd / strd or ldm / stm to the emulated vgic */
> - if (mmio->len > 4) {
> - kvm_inject_dabt(vcpu, mmio->phys_addr);
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> - offset = mmio->phys_addr - base;
> - range = find_matching_range(vgic_dist_ranges, mmio, offset);
> + offset = mmio->phys_addr - mmio_base;
> + range = find_matching_range(ranges, mmio, offset);
> if (unlikely(!range || !range->handle_mmio)) {
> pr_warn("Unhandled access %d %08llx %d\n",
> mmio->is_write, mmio->phys_addr, mmio->len);
> @@ -963,7 +954,7 @@ bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> }
>
> spin_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.lock);
> - offset = mmio->phys_addr - range->base - base;
> + offset -= range->base;
> if (vgic_validate_access(dist, range, offset)) {
> updated_state = range->handle_mmio(vcpu, mmio, offset);
> } else {
> @@ -981,6 +972,45 @@ bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> return true;
> }
>
> +#define IS_IN_RANGE(addr, alen, base, len) \
> + (((addr) >= (base)) && (((addr) + (alen)) < ((base) + (len))))
that should be <= ((base) + (len)) right?
that's a lot of parenthesis, how about creating a static inline instead?
you could also rename alen to access_len
> +
> +static bool vgic_v2_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio)
> +{
> + unsigned long base = vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_dist_base;
> +
> + if (!IS_IN_RANGE(mmio->phys_addr, mmio->len, base,
> + KVM_VGIC_V2_DIST_SIZE))
> + return false;
> +
> + /* GICv2 does not support accesses wider than 32 bits */
> + if (mmio->len > 4) {
> + kvm_inject_dabt(vcpu, mmio->phys_addr);
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + return vgic_handle_mmio_range(vcpu, run, mmio, vgic_dist_ranges, base);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * vgic_handle_mmio - handle an in-kernel MMIO access for the GIC emulation
> + * @vcpu: pointer to the vcpu performing the access
> + * @run: pointer to the kvm_run structure
> + * @mmio: pointer to the data describing the access
> + *
> + * returns true if the MMIO access has been performed in kernel space,
> + * and false if it needs to be emulated in user space.
> + */
> +bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio)
> +{
> + if (!irqchip_in_kernel(vcpu->kvm))
> + return false;
> +
> + return vgic_v2_handle_mmio(vcpu, run, mmio);
> +}
> +
> static u8 *vgic_get_sgi_sources(struct vgic_dist *dist, int vcpu_id, int sgi)
> {
> return dist->irq_sgi_sources + vcpu_id * VGIC_NR_SGIS + sgi;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
Thanks,
-Christoffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-15 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-21 13:06 [PATCH v2 00/15] KVM GICv3 emulation Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 01/15] arm/arm64: KVM: rework MPIDR assignment and add accessors Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-15 16:25 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-15 16:25 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-31 14:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-31 14:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 02/15] arm/arm64: KVM: pass down user space provided GIC type into vGIC code Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-15 16:25 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-15 16:25 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 03/15] arm/arm64: KVM: refactor vgic_handle_mmio() function Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-09-04 7:52 ` wanghaibin
2014-10-15 16:25 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2014-10-15 16:25 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-31 13:42 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-31 13:42 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 04/15] arm/arm64: KVM: wrap 64 bit MMIO accesses with two 32 bit ones Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-15 16:26 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-15 16:26 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-31 13:49 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-31 13:49 ` Andre Przywara
2014-11-03 9:54 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-11-03 9:54 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 05/15] arm/arm64: KVM: introduce per-VM ops Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-15 16:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-15 16:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-31 13:59 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-31 13:59 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 06/15] arm/arm64: KVM: make the maximum number of vCPUs a per-VM value Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-15 16:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-15 16:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-31 14:10 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-31 14:10 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 07/15] arm/arm64: KVM: make the value of ICC_SRE_EL1 a per-VM variable Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-15 16:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-10-15 16:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 08/15] arm/arm64: KVM: refactor MMIO accessors Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 09/15] arm/arm64: KVM: refactor/wrap vgic_set/get_attr() Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 10/15] arm/arm64: KVM: split GICv2 specific emulation code from vgic.c Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 11/15] arm/arm64: KVM: add opaque private pointer to MMIO accessors Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 12/15] arm/arm64: KVM: add virtual GICv3 distributor emulation Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-09-05 3:28 ` wanghaibin
2014-09-05 3:28 ` wanghaibin
2014-09-05 8:13 ` Andre Przywara
2014-09-05 8:13 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 13/15] arm/arm64: KVM: add SGI system register trapping Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 14/15] arm/arm64: KVM: enable kernel side of GICv3 emulation Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` [PATCH v2 15/15] arm/arm64: KVM: allow userland to request a virtual GICv3 Andre Przywara
2014-08-21 13:06 ` Andre Przywara
2014-09-20 1:15 ` wanghaibin
2014-09-20 1:15 ` wanghaibin
2014-10-08 4:08 ` [PATCH v2 00/15] KVM GICv3 emulation wanghaibin
2014-10-08 4:08 ` wanghaibin
2014-10-08 8:41 ` Andre Przywara
2014-10-08 8:41 ` Andre Przywara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141015162556.GD14272@lvm \
--to=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.