Re: [RFC v2 0/9] KVM-VFIO IRQ forward control

Eric Auger
2014-11-17T13:41:43Z

Hi Feng,

I will submit a PATCH v3 release end of this week.

Best Regards

Eric

On 11/17/2014 12:25 PM, Wu, Feng wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
>> [mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Alex Williamson
>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 1:10 PM
>> To: Christoffer Dall
>> Cc: Eric Auger; eric.auger@st.com; marc.zyngier@arm.com;
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu;
>> kvm@vger.kernel.org; joel.schopp@amd.com; kim.phillips@freescale.com;
>> paulus@samba.org; gleb@kernel.org; pbonzini@redhat.com;
>> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; patches@linaro.org; will.deacon@arm.com;
>> a.motakis@virtualopensystems.com; a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com;
>> john.liuli@huawei.com
>> Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/9] KVM-VFIO IRQ forward control
>>
>> On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 05:10 +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:05:41PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 14:52 +0200, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>>> This RFC proposes an integration of "ARM: Forwarding physical
>>>>> interrupts to a guest VM" (http://lwn.net/Articles/603514/) in
>>>>> KVM.
>>>>>
>>>>> It enables to transform a VFIO platform driver IRQ into a forwarded
>>>>> IRQ. The direct benefit is that, for a level sensitive IRQ, a VM
>>>>> switch can be avoided on guest virtual IRQ completion. Before this
>>>>> patch, a maintenance IRQ was triggered on the virtual IRQ completion.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the IRQ is forwarded, the VFIO platform driver does not need to
>>>>> disable the IRQ anymore. Indeed when returning from the IRQ handler
>>>>> the IRQ is not deactivated. Only its priority is lowered. This means
>>>>> the same IRQ cannot hit before the guest completes the virtual IRQ
>>>>> and the GIC automatically deactivates the corresponding physical IRQ.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, the injection still is based on irqfd triggering. The only
>>>>> impact on irqfd process is resamplefd is not called anymore on
>>>>> virtual IRQ completion since this latter becomes "transparent".
>>>>>
>>>>> The current integration is based on an extension of the KVM-VFIO
>>>>> device, previously used by KVM to interact with VFIO groups. The
>>>>> patch serie now enables KVM to directly interact with a VFIO
>>>>> platform device. The VFIO external API was extended for that purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Th KVM-VFIO device can get/put the vfio platform device, check its
>>>>> integrity and type, get the IRQ number associated to an IRQ index.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IRQ forward programming is architecture specific (virtual interrupt
>>>>> controller programming basically). However the whole infrastructure is
>>>>> kept generic.
>>>>>
>>>>> from a user point of view, the functionality is provided through new
>>>>> KVM-VFIO device commands,
>> KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_(UN)FORWARD_IRQ
>>>>> and the capability can be checked with KVM_HAS_DEVICE_ATTR.
>>>>> Assignment can only be changed when the physical IRQ is not active.
>>>>> It is the responsability of the user to do this check.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch serie has the following dependencies:
>>>>> - "ARM: Forwarding physical interrupts to a guest VM"
>>>>> (http://lwn.net/Articles/603514/) in
>>>>> - [PATCH v3] irqfd for ARM
>>>>> - and obviously the VFIO platform driver serie:
>>>>> [RFC PATCH v6 00/20] VFIO support for platform devices on ARM
>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@vger.kernel.org/msg103247.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Integrated pieces can be found at
>>>>> ssh://git.linaro.org/people/eric.auger/linux.git
>>>>> on branch 3.17rc3_irqfd_forward_integ_v2
>>>>>
>>>>> This was was tested on Calxeda Midway, assigning the xgmac main IRQ.
>>>>>
>>>>> v1 -> v2:
>>>>> - forward control is moved from architecture specific file into generic
>>>>> vfio.c module.
>>>>> only kvm_arch_set_fwd_state remains architecture specific
>>>>> - integrate Kim's patch which enables KVM-VFIO for ARM
>>>>> - fix vgic state bypass in vgic_queue_hwirq
>>>>> - struct kvm_arch_forwarded_irq moved from
>> arch/arm/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>>>>> to include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>>>> also irq_index renamed into index and guest_irq renamed into gsi
>>>>> - ASSIGN/DEASSIGN renamed into FORWARD/UNFORWARD
>>>>> - vfio_external_get_base_device renamed into vfio_external_base_device
>>>>> - vfio_external_get_type removed
>>>>> - kvm_vfio_external_get_base_device renamed into
>> kvm_vfio_external_base_device
>>>>> - __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO renamed into
>> __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric Auger (8):
>>>>> KVM: ARM: VGIC: fix multiple injection of level sensitive forwarded
>>>>> IRQ
>>>>> KVM: ARM: VGIC: add forwarded irq rbtree lock
>>>>> VFIO: platform: handler tests whether the IRQ is forwarded
>>>>> KVM: KVM-VFIO: update user API to program forwarded IRQ
>>>>> VFIO: Extend external user API
>>>>> KVM: KVM-VFIO: add new VFIO external API hooks
>>>>> KVM: KVM-VFIO: generic KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE command and IRQ
>> forwarding
>>>>> control
>>>>> KVM: KVM-VFIO: ARM forwarding control
>>>>>
>>>>> Kim Phillips (1):
>>>>> ARM: KVM: Enable the KVM-VFIO device
>>>>>
>>>>> Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/vfio.txt | 26 ++
>>>>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 7 +
>>>>> arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig | 1 +
>>>>> arch/arm/kvm/Makefile | 4 +-
>>>>> arch/arm/kvm/kvm_vfio_arm.c | 85 +++++
>>>>> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c | 7 +-
>>>>> drivers/vfio/vfio.c | 24 ++
>>>>> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 1 +
>>>>> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 27 ++
>>>>> include/linux/vfio.h | 3 +
>>>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 9 +
>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 59 +++-
>>>>> virt/kvm/vfio.c | 497
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>> 13 files changed, 733 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/kvm/kvm_vfio_arm.c
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have we ventured too far in the other direction? I suppose what I was
>>>> hoping to see was something more like:
>>>>
>>>> case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_FORWARD_IRQ:{
>>>>
>>>> /* get vfio_device */
>>>>
>>>> /* get mutex */
>>>>
>>>> /* verify device+irq isn't already forwarded */
>>>>
>>>> /* allocate device/forwarded irq */
>>>>
>>>> /* get struct device */
>>>>
>>>> /* callout to arch code passing struct device, gsi, ... */
>>>>
>>>> /* if success, add to kv, else free and error */
>>>>
>>>> /* mutex unlock */
>>>> }
>>>
>>> I think that's essentially what this patch set is trying to do, but
>>> there are just too many complicated intertwining cases right now that
>>> makes the code hard to read.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exposing the internal mutex out to arch code, as in v1, was an
>>>> indication that we were pushing too much out to arch code, but including
>>>> platform_device.h into virt/kvm/vfio.c tells me we're still not
>>>> abstracting at the right point. Thanks,
>>>>
>>> I raised my eyebrows over the platform device bus thingy here as well,
>>> but on the other hand, there's nothing ARM-specific about referring to
>>> the platform device bus.
>>>
>>> I think perhaps it just has to be made more clear that the generic code
>>> deals with translating the device resources in the necessary way, and
>>> currently it only supports vfio-platform devices?
>>
>> Ok, you're probably right, looking at it again it is closer than I
>> thought. At the same time, the use of platform device in
>> virt/kvm/vfio.c is pointless and can easily be pushed out to the arch
>> code as just another error return case. vfio.c doesn't need to be aware
>> of hwirq. The rest of the code is just overly complicated, with three
>> different cleanup functions and validation function bloat. Thanks,
>>
>> Alex
>
>
> Hi Alex, Could you please tell what is the current status of this patch set.
> As you mentioned in another thread, something(such as, kvm_vfio_device_get_external_user(), etc.)
> in this patch set can be leveraged for VT-d Posted-interrtups.
>
> Thanks,
> Feng
>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/