From: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
To: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Cc: marc.zyngier@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: arm/arm64: kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable: don't miss injected irqs
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:18:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171018131843.GD8900@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171018121305.imlyjg7tssfjqc53@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:13:05PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 09:13:35PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:30:41PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > When the vPMU is in use if a VCPU's perf event overflow handler
> > > were to fire after the VCPU started waiting, then the wake up
> > > done by the kvm_vcpu_kick() call in the handler would do nothing,
> > > as no "pmu overflow" state is checked in kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable().
> > > Fix this by checking the IRQ_PENDING VCPU request in runnable().
> > > Checking the request also sufficiently covers all the cases that
> > > kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq() cover, so we can just replace that.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > index 5bc9b0d2fd0f..725527f491e4 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > @@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > return !vcpu_should_sleep(vcpu) &&
> > > (vcpu->arch.mp_state != KVM_MP_STATE_HALTED ||
> > > (!!vcpu->arch.irq_lines ||
> > > - kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq(vcpu)));
> > > + kvm_test_request(KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING, vcpu)));
> >
> > So what if a VCPU blocks, a device raises an IRQ, the VCPU loops around,
> > clears the KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING flag, enters the VM again, which does
> > another WFI (for fun), and you end up here again with a pending IRQ but
> > no KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING flag anymore. Doesn't this end up incorrectly
> > stalling the VCPU?
>
> Hmm, I see what you mean. I'm sorry I missed that.
>
> >
> > I don't think that a transient flag will work for a persistent binary
> > state here.
>
> I think we can fix it by adding
>
> if (kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq(vcpu))
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING, vcpu);
>
> to kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate(), if the additional overhead would be
> acceptable. Otherwise we need to find some other way to ensure
> vPMU irqs unblock the VCPU.
>
I think you just need to check
kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq() ||
kvm_test_request(KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING, vcpu)
Wouldn't that fix it?
Thanks,
-Christoffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-18 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-29 11:30 [PATCH 0/5] kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable related improvements Andrew Jones
2017-09-29 11:30 ` [PATCH 1/5] KVM: arm/arm64: tidy 'should sleep' conditions Andrew Jones
2017-10-05 8:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-09-29 11:30 ` [PATCH 2/5] KVM: arm/arm64: replace power_off with mp_state=STOPPED Andrew Jones
2017-10-05 8:32 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-10-10 13:26 ` Andrew Jones
2017-10-14 19:12 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-10-18 12:04 ` Andrew Jones
2017-09-29 11:30 ` [PATCH 3/5] KVM: arm/arm64: factor out common wfe/wfi emulation code Andrew Jones
2017-10-05 8:36 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-10-14 19:13 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-10-18 12:06 ` Andrew Jones
2017-09-29 11:30 ` [PATCH 4/5] KVM: arm/arm64: improve kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable Andrew Jones
2017-10-05 9:19 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-10-14 19:13 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-10-18 12:09 ` Andrew Jones
2017-09-29 11:30 ` [PATCH 5/5] KVM: arm/arm64: kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable: don't miss injected irqs Andrew Jones
2017-10-05 9:37 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-10-10 13:28 ` Andrew Jones
2017-10-14 19:13 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-10-18 12:13 ` Andrew Jones
2017-10-18 13:18 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2017-10-18 13:55 ` Andrew Jones
2017-10-18 14:14 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-10-02 8:31 ` [PATCH 6/5] KVM: arm/arm64: make kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq static Andrew Jones
2017-10-05 9:37 ` Marc Zyngier
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=20171018131843.GD8900@cbox \
--to=cdall@linaro.org \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.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