From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: arm64: Add early_param to control WFx trapping
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:53:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86sezss5cm.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240410175437.793508-1-coltonlewis@google.com>
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:54:37 +0100,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com> wrote:
>
> Add an early_param to control WFx (WFI or WFE) trapping. This is so
> interrupts can be passed through if the CPU has support for direct
> interrupt injection, a feature of GICv4. This is described as an
> enumeration with three possible behaviors, always passthrough (never
> trap), never passthrough (always trap), or default (trap if more than
> one task is running. Default matches the current behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>
> ---
> v3:
> * Changed control mechanism to an early_param on Marc's advice this should be
> a system level decision and not exposed via uapi
> * Reduced behavior to an enum from an integer as there are only a few options
> that make logical sense
> * Limit option for always passthrough to systems with GICv4 since the primary
> case for always passthrough is systems with direct interrupt injection
>
> v2:
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20240319164341.1674863-1-coltonlewis@google.com/
>
> v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20240129213918.3124494-1-coltonlewis@google.com/
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 7 +++++++
> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 21c57b812569..e9225b1d0e9b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -67,6 +67,13 @@ enum kvm_mode {
> KVM_MODE_NV,
> KVM_MODE_NONE,
> };
> +
> +enum kvm_interrupt_passthrough {
> + KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_DEFAULT,
> + KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_ALWAYS,
> + KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_NEVER,
What does this mean? This is not dealing with interrupts, this is
supposed to deal with the behaviour of specific instructions
(WFI/WFE). The notion of "passthrough" is really odd as well. Finally,
both ALWAYS and NEVER are wrong -- the architecture makes no such
guarantee.
> +};
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> enum kvm_mode kvm_get_mode(void);
> #else
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index a25265aca432..5d0ea6b2c652 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
> #include <kvm/arm_psci.h>
>
> static enum kvm_mode kvm_mode = KVM_MODE_DEFAULT;
> +static enum kvm_interrupt_passthrough kvm_interrupt_passthrough = KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_DEFAULT;
>
> DECLARE_KVM_HYP_PER_CPU(unsigned long, kvm_hyp_vector);
>
> @@ -456,7 +457,10 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> if (kvm_arm_is_pvtime_enabled(&vcpu->arch))
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RECORD_STEAL, vcpu);
>
> - if (single_task_running())
> + if ((kvm_interrupt_passthrough == KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_ALWAYS
> + && kvm_vgic_global_state.has_gicv4) ||
> + (kvm_interrupt_passthrough == KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_DEFAULT
> + && single_task_running()))
Why is this affecting both WFI and WFE? They are very different and
lumping them together makes little sense.
> vcpu_clear_wfx_traps(vcpu);
> else
> vcpu_set_wfx_traps(vcpu);
> @@ -2654,6 +2658,30 @@ static int __init early_kvm_mode_cfg(char *arg)
> }
> early_param("kvm-arm.mode", early_kvm_mode_cfg);
>
> +static int __init early_kvm_interrupt_passthrough_cfg(char *arg)
> +{
> + if (!arg)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (strcmp(arg, "always") == 0) {
> + kvm_interrupt_passthrough = KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_ALWAYS;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (strcmp(arg, "never") == 0) {
> + kvm_interrupt_passthrough = KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_NEVER;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (strcmp(arg, "default") == 0) {
> + kvm_interrupt_passthrough = KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_DEFAULT;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +early_param("kvm-arm.interrupt-passthrough", early_kvm_interrupt_passthrough_cfg);
> +
Again, this is not dealing with interrupts. This is dealing with the
*potential* trapping of instructions in certain circumstances.
> enum kvm_mode kvm_get_mode(void)
> {
> return kvm_mode;
Finally, this needs to be documented.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: arm64: Add early_param to control WFx trapping
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:53:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86sezss5cm.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240410175437.793508-1-coltonlewis@google.com>
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 18:54:37 +0100,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com> wrote:
>
> Add an early_param to control WFx (WFI or WFE) trapping. This is so
> interrupts can be passed through if the CPU has support for direct
> interrupt injection, a feature of GICv4. This is described as an
> enumeration with three possible behaviors, always passthrough (never
> trap), never passthrough (always trap), or default (trap if more than
> one task is running. Default matches the current behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>
> ---
> v3:
> * Changed control mechanism to an early_param on Marc's advice this should be
> a system level decision and not exposed via uapi
> * Reduced behavior to an enum from an integer as there are only a few options
> that make logical sense
> * Limit option for always passthrough to systems with GICv4 since the primary
> case for always passthrough is systems with direct interrupt injection
>
> v2:
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20240319164341.1674863-1-coltonlewis@google.com/
>
> v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20240129213918.3124494-1-coltonlewis@google.com/
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 7 +++++++
> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 21c57b812569..e9225b1d0e9b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -67,6 +67,13 @@ enum kvm_mode {
> KVM_MODE_NV,
> KVM_MODE_NONE,
> };
> +
> +enum kvm_interrupt_passthrough {
> + KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_DEFAULT,
> + KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_ALWAYS,
> + KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_NEVER,
What does this mean? This is not dealing with interrupts, this is
supposed to deal with the behaviour of specific instructions
(WFI/WFE). The notion of "passthrough" is really odd as well. Finally,
both ALWAYS and NEVER are wrong -- the architecture makes no such
guarantee.
> +};
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> enum kvm_mode kvm_get_mode(void);
> #else
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index a25265aca432..5d0ea6b2c652 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
> #include <kvm/arm_psci.h>
>
> static enum kvm_mode kvm_mode = KVM_MODE_DEFAULT;
> +static enum kvm_interrupt_passthrough kvm_interrupt_passthrough = KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_DEFAULT;
>
> DECLARE_KVM_HYP_PER_CPU(unsigned long, kvm_hyp_vector);
>
> @@ -456,7 +457,10 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> if (kvm_arm_is_pvtime_enabled(&vcpu->arch))
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RECORD_STEAL, vcpu);
>
> - if (single_task_running())
> + if ((kvm_interrupt_passthrough == KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_ALWAYS
> + && kvm_vgic_global_state.has_gicv4) ||
> + (kvm_interrupt_passthrough == KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_DEFAULT
> + && single_task_running()))
Why is this affecting both WFI and WFE? They are very different and
lumping them together makes little sense.
> vcpu_clear_wfx_traps(vcpu);
> else
> vcpu_set_wfx_traps(vcpu);
> @@ -2654,6 +2658,30 @@ static int __init early_kvm_mode_cfg(char *arg)
> }
> early_param("kvm-arm.mode", early_kvm_mode_cfg);
>
> +static int __init early_kvm_interrupt_passthrough_cfg(char *arg)
> +{
> + if (!arg)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (strcmp(arg, "always") == 0) {
> + kvm_interrupt_passthrough = KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_ALWAYS;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (strcmp(arg, "never") == 0) {
> + kvm_interrupt_passthrough = KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_NEVER;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (strcmp(arg, "default") == 0) {
> + kvm_interrupt_passthrough = KVM_INTERRUPT_PASSTHROUGH_DEFAULT;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +early_param("kvm-arm.interrupt-passthrough", early_kvm_interrupt_passthrough_cfg);
> +
Again, this is not dealing with interrupts. This is dealing with the
*potential* trapping of instructions in certain circumstances.
> enum kvm_mode kvm_get_mode(void)
> {
> return kvm_mode;
Finally, this needs to be documented.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-11 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-10 17:54 [PATCH v3] KVM: arm64: Add early_param to control WFx trapping Colton Lewis
2024-04-10 17:54 ` Colton Lewis
2024-04-11 7:53 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2024-04-11 7:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-04-15 19:40 ` Colton Lewis
2024-04-15 19:40 ` Colton Lewis
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=86sezss5cm.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=coltonlewis@google.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/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.