From: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>
To: Nikolay Nikolaev <n.nikolaev@virtualopensystems.com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@linaro.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MA..." <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
VirtualOpenSystems Technical Team <tech@virtualopensystems.com>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
ARM PORT <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] ARM: KVM: on unhandled IO mem abort, route the call to the KVM MMIO bus
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:16:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5464BD30.7040702@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADDJ2=PTM0fJ0RFfWdVQ1-471xqaJmj0vP1f5-pf57xOV5jgig@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/13/2014 11:45 AM, Nikolay Nikolaev wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Christoffer Dall
> <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:09:07PM +0200, Nikolay Nikolaev wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Christoffer Dall
>>> <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:57:26PM +0100, Antonios Motakis wrote:
>>>>> On an unhandled IO memory abort, use the kvm_io_bus_* API in order to
>>>>> handle the MMIO access through any registered read/write callbacks. This
>>>>> is a dependency for eventfd support (ioeventfd and irqfd).
>>>>>
>>>>> However, accesses to the VGIC are still left implemented independently,
>>>>> since the kvm_io_bus_* API doesn't pass the VCPU pointer doing the access.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Antonios Motakis <a.motakis@virtualopensystems.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Nikolaev <n.nikolaev@virtualopensystems.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm/kvm/mmio.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmio.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmio.c
>>>>> index 4cb5a93..1d17831 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmio.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmio.c
>>>>> @@ -162,6 +162,35 @@ static int decode_hsr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * kvm_handle_mmio - 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
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * returns true if the MMIO access has been performed in kernel space,
>>>>> + * and false if it needs to be emulated in user space.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static bool handle_kernel_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
>>>>> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>> + if (mmio->is_write) {
>>>>> + ret = kvm_io_bus_write(vcpu->kvm, KVM_MMIO_BUS, mmio->phys_addr,
>>>>> + mmio->len, &mmio->data);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + ret = kvm_io_bus_read(vcpu->kvm, KVM_MMIO_BUS, mmio->phys_addr,
>>>>> + mmio->len, &mmio->data);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + if (!ret) {
>>>>> + kvm_prepare_mmio(run, mmio);
>>>>> + kvm_handle_mmio_return(vcpu, run);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return !ret;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> int io_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
>>>>> phys_addr_t fault_ipa)
>>>>> {
>>>>> @@ -200,6 +229,9 @@ int io_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
>>>>> if (vgic_handle_mmio(vcpu, run, &mmio))
>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (handle_kernel_mmio(vcpu, run, &mmio))
>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>> +
>>>
>>>
>>> We're reconsidering ioeventfds patchseries and we tried to evaluate
>>> what you suggested here.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> this special-casing of the vgic is now really terrible. Is there
>>>> anything holding you back from doing the necessary restructure of the
>>>> kvm_bus_io_*() API instead?
>>>
>>> Restructuring the kvm_io_bus_ API is not a big thing (we actually did
>>> it), but is not directly related to the these patches.
>>> Of course it can be justified if we do it in the context of removing
>>> vgic_handle_mmio and leaving only handle_kernel_mmio.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would allow us to get rid of the ugly
>>>> Fix it! in the vgic driver as well.
>>>
>>> Going through the vgic_handle_mmio we see that it will require large
>>> refactoring:
>>> - there are 15 MMIO ranges for the vgic now - each should be
>>> registered as a separate device
Hi Nikolaev, Andre,
what does mandate to register 15 devices? Isn't possible to register a
single kvm_io_device covering the whole distributor range [base, base +
KVM_VGIC_V2_DIST_SIZE] (current code) and in associated
kvm_io_device_ops read/write locate the addressed range and do the same
as what is done in current vgic_handle_mmio? Isn't it done that way for
the ioapic? what do I miss?
Thanks
Best Regards
Eric
>>> - the handler of each range should be split into read and write
>>> - all handlers take 'struct kvm_exit_mmio', and pass it to
>>> 'vgic_reg_access', 'mmio_data_read' and 'mmio_data_read'
>>>
>>> To sum up - if we do this refactoring of vgic's MMIO handling +
>>> kvm_io_bus_ API getting 'vcpu" argument we'll get a 'much' cleaner
>>> vgic code and as a bonus we'll get 'ioeventfd' capabilities.
>>>
>>> We have 3 questions:
>>> - is the kvm_io_bus_ getting 'vcpu' argument acceptable for the other
>>> architectures too?
>>> - is this huge vgic MMIO handling redesign acceptable/desired (it
>>> touches a lot of code)?
>>> - is there a way that ioeventfd is accepted leaving vgic.c in it's
>>> current state?
>>>
>> Not sure how the latter question is relevant to this, but check with
>> Andre who recently looked at this as well and decided that for GICv3 the
>> only sane thing was to remove that comment for the gic.
> @Andre - what's your experience with the GICv3 and MMIO handling,
> anything specific?
>>
>> I don't recall the details of what you were trying to accomplish here
>> (it's been 8 months or so) but the surely the vgic handling code should
>> *somehow* be integrated into the handle_kernel_mmio (like Paolo
>> suggested), unless you come back and tell me that that would involve a
>> complete rewrite of the vgic code.
> I'm experimenting now - it's not exactly rewrite of whole vgic code,
> but it will touch a lot of it - all MMIO access handlers and the
> supporting functions.
> We're ready to spend the effort. My question is - is this acceptable?
>
> regards,
> Nikolay Nikolaev
> Virtual Open Systems
>>
>> -Christoffer
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-13 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1394726249-1547-1-git-send-email-a.motakis@virtualopensystems.com>
2014-03-13 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] ARM: KVM: on unhandled IO mem abort, route the call to the KVM MMIO bus Antonios Motakis
2014-03-28 19:09 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-03-29 17:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-11-10 15:09 ` Nikolay Nikolaev
2014-11-10 16:27 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-11-13 10:45 ` Nikolay Nikolaev
2014-11-13 11:20 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-11-13 11:20 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-11-13 11:37 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-13 11:52 ` Andre Przywara
2014-11-13 12:29 ` Nikolay Nikolaev
2014-11-13 12:52 ` Andre Przywara
2014-11-13 14:16 ` Eric Auger [this message]
2014-11-13 14:23 ` Eric Auger
2014-11-13 15:02 ` Nikolay Nikolaev
2014-11-13 15:13 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-11-13 15:31 ` Andre Przywara
2014-11-13 16:07 ` Eric Auger
2014-03-13 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] KVM: irqfd should depend on CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_IRQ_ROUTING Antonios Motakis
2014-03-13 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] ARM: KVM: enable linking against eventfd Antonios Motakis
2014-03-13 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] ARM: KVM: enable KVM_CAP_IOEVENTFD Antonios Motakis
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=5464BD30.7040702@linaro.org \
--to=eric.auger@linaro.org \
--cc=andre.przywara@linaro.org \
--cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=gleb@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=n.nikolaev@virtualopensystems.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=tech@virtualopensystems.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).