From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 5/5] RISC-V: Add SBI HSM extension in KVM
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 15:02:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YWBdbCNQdikbhhBq@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211008032036.2201971-6-atish.patra@wdc.com>
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:
> SBI HSM extension allows OS to start/stop harts any time. It also allows
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> index c44cabce7dd8..278b4d643e1b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> @@ -133,6 +133,13 @@ static void kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> struct kvm_vcpu_csr *reset_csr = &vcpu->arch.guest_reset_csr;
> struct kvm_cpu_context *cntx = &vcpu->arch.guest_context;
> struct kvm_cpu_context *reset_cntx = &vcpu->arch.guest_reset_context;
> + bool loaded;
> +
> + /* Disable preemption to avoid race with preempt notifiers */
Stating what the code literally does is not a helpful comment, as it doesn't
help the reader understand _why_ preemption needs to be disabled.
> + preempt_disable();
> + loaded = (vcpu->cpu != -1);
> + if (loaded)
> + kvm_arch_vcpu_put(vcpu);
Oof. Looks like this pattern was taken from arm64. Is there really no better
approach to handling this? I don't see anything in kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu() that
will obviously break if the vCPU is loaded. If the goal is purely to effect a
CSR reset via kvm_arch_vcpu_load(), then why not just factor out a helper to do
exactly that?
>
> memcpy(csr, reset_csr, sizeof(*csr));
>
> @@ -144,6 +151,11 @@ static void kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.irqs_pending, 0);
> WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.irqs_pending_mask, 0);
> +
> + /* Reset the guest CSRs for hotplug usecase */
> + if (loaded)
> + kvm_arch_vcpu_load(vcpu, smp_processor_id());
If the preempt shenanigans really have to stay, at least use get_cpu()/put_cpu().
> + preempt_enable();
> }
>
> int kvm_arch_vcpu_precreate(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int id)
> @@ -180,6 +192,13 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> void kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> + /**
> + * vcpu with id 0 is the designated boot cpu.
> + * Keep all vcpus with non-zero cpu id in power-off state so that they
> + * can brought to online using SBI HSM extension.
> + */
> + if (vcpu->vcpu_idx != 0)
> + kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);
Why do this in postcreate?
> }
>
> void kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> index dadee5e61a46..db54ef21168b 100644
...
> +static int kvm_sbi_hsm_vcpu_start(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + struct kvm_cpu_context *reset_cntx;
> + struct kvm_cpu_context *cp = &vcpu->arch.guest_context;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *target_vcpu;
> + unsigned long target_vcpuid = cp->a0;
> +
> + target_vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu_by_id(vcpu->kvm, target_vcpuid);
> + if (!target_vcpu)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (!target_vcpu->arch.power_off)
> + return -EALREADY;
> +
> + reset_cntx = &target_vcpu->arch.guest_reset_context;
> + /* start address */
> + reset_cntx->sepc = cp->a1;
> + /* target vcpu id to start */
> + reset_cntx->a0 = target_vcpuid;
> + /* private data passed from kernel */
> + reset_cntx->a1 = cp->a2;
> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_RESET, target_vcpu);
> +
> + /* Make sure that the reset request is enqueued before power on */
> + smp_wmb();
What does this pair with? I suspect nothing, because AFAICT the code was taken
from arm64.
arm64 has the smp_wmb() in kvm_psci_vcpu_on() to ensure that the vCPU sees the
request if the vCPU sees the change in vcpu->arch.power_off, and so has a
smp_rmb() in kvm_reset_vcpu().
Side topic, how much of arm64 and RISC-V is this similar? Would it make sense
to find some way for them to share code?
> + kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_on(target_vcpu);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_sbi_hsm_vcpu_stop(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + if ((!vcpu) || (vcpu->arch.power_off))
Too many parentheses, and the NULL vCPU check is unnecessary.
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Vincent Chen <vincent.chen@sifive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] RISC-V: Add SBI HSM extension in KVM
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 15:02:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YWBdbCNQdikbhhBq@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211008032036.2201971-6-atish.patra@wdc.com>
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:
> SBI HSM extension allows OS to start/stop harts any time. It also allows
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> index c44cabce7dd8..278b4d643e1b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> @@ -133,6 +133,13 @@ static void kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> struct kvm_vcpu_csr *reset_csr = &vcpu->arch.guest_reset_csr;
> struct kvm_cpu_context *cntx = &vcpu->arch.guest_context;
> struct kvm_cpu_context *reset_cntx = &vcpu->arch.guest_reset_context;
> + bool loaded;
> +
> + /* Disable preemption to avoid race with preempt notifiers */
Stating what the code literally does is not a helpful comment, as it doesn't
help the reader understand _why_ preemption needs to be disabled.
> + preempt_disable();
> + loaded = (vcpu->cpu != -1);
> + if (loaded)
> + kvm_arch_vcpu_put(vcpu);
Oof. Looks like this pattern was taken from arm64. Is there really no better
approach to handling this? I don't see anything in kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu() that
will obviously break if the vCPU is loaded. If the goal is purely to effect a
CSR reset via kvm_arch_vcpu_load(), then why not just factor out a helper to do
exactly that?
>
> memcpy(csr, reset_csr, sizeof(*csr));
>
> @@ -144,6 +151,11 @@ static void kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.irqs_pending, 0);
> WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.irqs_pending_mask, 0);
> +
> + /* Reset the guest CSRs for hotplug usecase */
> + if (loaded)
> + kvm_arch_vcpu_load(vcpu, smp_processor_id());
If the preempt shenanigans really have to stay, at least use get_cpu()/put_cpu().
> + preempt_enable();
> }
>
> int kvm_arch_vcpu_precreate(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int id)
> @@ -180,6 +192,13 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> void kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> + /**
> + * vcpu with id 0 is the designated boot cpu.
> + * Keep all vcpus with non-zero cpu id in power-off state so that they
> + * can brought to online using SBI HSM extension.
> + */
> + if (vcpu->vcpu_idx != 0)
> + kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);
Why do this in postcreate?
> }
>
> void kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> index dadee5e61a46..db54ef21168b 100644
...
> +static int kvm_sbi_hsm_vcpu_start(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + struct kvm_cpu_context *reset_cntx;
> + struct kvm_cpu_context *cp = &vcpu->arch.guest_context;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *target_vcpu;
> + unsigned long target_vcpuid = cp->a0;
> +
> + target_vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu_by_id(vcpu->kvm, target_vcpuid);
> + if (!target_vcpu)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (!target_vcpu->arch.power_off)
> + return -EALREADY;
> +
> + reset_cntx = &target_vcpu->arch.guest_reset_context;
> + /* start address */
> + reset_cntx->sepc = cp->a1;
> + /* target vcpu id to start */
> + reset_cntx->a0 = target_vcpuid;
> + /* private data passed from kernel */
> + reset_cntx->a1 = cp->a2;
> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_RESET, target_vcpu);
> +
> + /* Make sure that the reset request is enqueued before power on */
> + smp_wmb();
What does this pair with? I suspect nothing, because AFAICT the code was taken
from arm64.
arm64 has the smp_wmb() in kvm_psci_vcpu_on() to ensure that the vCPU sees the
request if the vCPU sees the change in vcpu->arch.power_off, and so has a
smp_rmb() in kvm_reset_vcpu().
Side topic, how much of arm64 and RISC-V is this similar? Would it make sense
to find some way for them to share code?
> + kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_on(target_vcpu);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_sbi_hsm_vcpu_stop(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + if ((!vcpu) || (vcpu->arch.power_off))
Too many parentheses, and the NULL vCPU check is unnecessary.
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com>,
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Vincent Chen <vincent.chen@sifive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] RISC-V: Add SBI HSM extension in KVM
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 15:02:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YWBdbCNQdikbhhBq@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211008032036.2201971-6-atish.patra@wdc.com>
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021, Atish Patra wrote:
> SBI HSM extension allows OS to start/stop harts any time. It also allows
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> index c44cabce7dd8..278b4d643e1b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> @@ -133,6 +133,13 @@ static void kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> struct kvm_vcpu_csr *reset_csr = &vcpu->arch.guest_reset_csr;
> struct kvm_cpu_context *cntx = &vcpu->arch.guest_context;
> struct kvm_cpu_context *reset_cntx = &vcpu->arch.guest_reset_context;
> + bool loaded;
> +
> + /* Disable preemption to avoid race with preempt notifiers */
Stating what the code literally does is not a helpful comment, as it doesn't
help the reader understand _why_ preemption needs to be disabled.
> + preempt_disable();
> + loaded = (vcpu->cpu != -1);
> + if (loaded)
> + kvm_arch_vcpu_put(vcpu);
Oof. Looks like this pattern was taken from arm64. Is there really no better
approach to handling this? I don't see anything in kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu() that
will obviously break if the vCPU is loaded. If the goal is purely to effect a
CSR reset via kvm_arch_vcpu_load(), then why not just factor out a helper to do
exactly that?
>
> memcpy(csr, reset_csr, sizeof(*csr));
>
> @@ -144,6 +151,11 @@ static void kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.irqs_pending, 0);
> WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->arch.irqs_pending_mask, 0);
> +
> + /* Reset the guest CSRs for hotplug usecase */
> + if (loaded)
> + kvm_arch_vcpu_load(vcpu, smp_processor_id());
If the preempt shenanigans really have to stay, at least use get_cpu()/put_cpu().
> + preempt_enable();
> }
>
> int kvm_arch_vcpu_precreate(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int id)
> @@ -180,6 +192,13 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> void kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> + /**
> + * vcpu with id 0 is the designated boot cpu.
> + * Keep all vcpus with non-zero cpu id in power-off state so that they
> + * can brought to online using SBI HSM extension.
> + */
> + if (vcpu->vcpu_idx != 0)
> + kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);
Why do this in postcreate?
> }
>
> void kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> index dadee5e61a46..db54ef21168b 100644
...
> +static int kvm_sbi_hsm_vcpu_start(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + struct kvm_cpu_context *reset_cntx;
> + struct kvm_cpu_context *cp = &vcpu->arch.guest_context;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *target_vcpu;
> + unsigned long target_vcpuid = cp->a0;
> +
> + target_vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu_by_id(vcpu->kvm, target_vcpuid);
> + if (!target_vcpu)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (!target_vcpu->arch.power_off)
> + return -EALREADY;
> +
> + reset_cntx = &target_vcpu->arch.guest_reset_context;
> + /* start address */
> + reset_cntx->sepc = cp->a1;
> + /* target vcpu id to start */
> + reset_cntx->a0 = target_vcpuid;
> + /* private data passed from kernel */
> + reset_cntx->a1 = cp->a2;
> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_RESET, target_vcpu);
> +
> + /* Make sure that the reset request is enqueued before power on */
> + smp_wmb();
What does this pair with? I suspect nothing, because AFAICT the code was taken
from arm64.
arm64 has the smp_wmb() in kvm_psci_vcpu_on() to ensure that the vCPU sees the
request if the vCPU sees the change in vcpu->arch.power_off, and so has a
smp_rmb() in kvm_reset_vcpu().
Side topic, how much of arm64 and RISC-V is this similar? Would it make sense
to find some way for them to share code?
> + kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_on(target_vcpu);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_sbi_hsm_vcpu_stop(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + if ((!vcpu) || (vcpu->arch.power_off))
Too many parentheses, and the NULL vCPU check is unnecessary.
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + kvm_riscv_vcpu_power_off(vcpu);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-08 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-08 3:20 [PATCH v3 0/5] Add SBI v0.2 support for KVM Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] RISC-V: Mark the existing SBI v0.1 implementation as legacy Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 7:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-10-08 7:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-10-08 7:24 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-10-25 7:53 ` Anup Patel
2021-10-25 7:53 ` Anup Patel
2021-10-25 7:53 ` Anup Patel
2021-10-08 3:20 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] RISC-V: Reorganize SBI code by moving legacy SBI to its own file Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] RISC-V: Add SBI v0.2 base extension Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] RISC-V: Add v0.1 replacement SBI extensions defined in v02 Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] RISC-V: Add SBI HSM extension in KVM Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 3:20 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-08 15:02 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2021-10-08 15:02 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-08 15:02 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-11 8:02 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-11 8:02 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-11 8:02 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-11 14:32 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-11 14:32 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-11 14:32 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-11 22:50 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-11 22:50 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-11 22:50 ` Atish Patra
2021-10-12 16:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-12 16:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-12 16:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-10 9:34 ` [PATCH v3 0/5] Add SBI v0.2 support for KVM Guo Ren
2021-10-10 9:34 ` Guo Ren
2021-10-10 9:34 ` Guo Ren
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=YWBdbCNQdikbhhBq@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=kvm-riscv@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.