From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, 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-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] KVM: arm64: Add early_param to control WFx trapping
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 19:09:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZmyVYQG_wC9rRonF@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240523174056.1565133-1-coltonlewis@google.com>
On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 05:40:55PM +0000, Colton Lewis wrote:
> Add an early_params to control WFI and WFE trapping. This is to
> control the degree guests can wait for interrupts on their own without
> being trapped by KVM. Options for each param are trap and notrap. trap
> enables the trap. notrap disables the trap. Note that when enabled,
> traps are allowed but not guaranteed by the CPU architecture. Absent
> an explicitly set policy, default to current behavior: disabling the
> trap if only a single task is running and enabling otherwise.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>
> ---
> v6:
> * Rebase to v6.9.1
As in from the stable tree? Please base your patches on an -rc tag, and
especially one from this release cycle.
> +static bool kvm_vcpu_should_clear_twi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + if (likely(kvm_wfi_trap_policy == KVM_WFX_NOTRAP_SINGLE_TASK))
> + return single_task_running() &&
> + (atomic_read(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.vlpi_count) ||
> + vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.nassgireq);
> +
> + return kvm_wfi_trap_policy == KVM_WFX_NOTRAP;
> +}
Generally, it is more readable to organize your code in such a way that
multiline statements are unnested as much as possible. So if you were to
invert the if condition it'd become a bit cleaner.
Here is what I plan on squashing into this patch,
kvm_vcpu_should_clear_twe() got the same treatment for the sake of
consistency.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
index 9cddd1096b0a..53e23528d2cf 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
@@ -557,20 +557,20 @@ static void vcpu_set_pauth_traps(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
static bool kvm_vcpu_should_clear_twi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
- if (likely(kvm_wfi_trap_policy == KVM_WFX_NOTRAP_SINGLE_TASK))
- return single_task_running() &&
- (atomic_read(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.vlpi_count) ||
- vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.nassgireq);
+ if (unlikely(kvm_wfi_trap_policy != KVM_WFX_NOTRAP_SINGLE_TASK))
+ return kvm_wfi_trap_policy == KVM_WFX_NOTRAP;
- return kvm_wfi_trap_policy == KVM_WFX_NOTRAP;
+ return single_task_running() &&
+ (atomic_read(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.vlpi_count) ||
+ vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.nassgireq);
}
static bool kvm_vcpu_should_clear_twe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
- if (likely(kvm_wfe_trap_policy == KVM_WFX_NOTRAP_SINGLE_TASK))
- return single_task_running();
+ if (unlikely(kvm_wfe_trap_policy != KVM_WFX_NOTRAP_SINGLE_TASK))
+ return kvm_wfe_trap_policy == KVM_WFX_NOTRAP;
- return kvm_wfe_trap_policy == KVM_WFX_NOTRAP;
+ return single_task_running();
}
void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
--
Thanks,
Oliver
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-14 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-23 17:40 [PATCH v6] KVM: arm64: Add early_param to control WFx trapping Colton Lewis
2024-06-14 16:25 ` Jing Zhang
2024-06-14 19:09 ` Oliver Upton [this message]
2024-06-14 20:12 ` Oliver Upton
2024-06-17 18:22 ` 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=ZmyVYQG_wC9rRonF@linux.dev \
--to=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=coltonlewis@google.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox