From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: arm/arm64: kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable: don't miss
 injected irqs
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:37:32 +0100
Message-ID: <f94ab402-e108-baf7-1d4f-9e465a5b0f7f@arm.com>
References: <20170929113041.24371-1-drjones@redhat.com>
 <20170929113041.24371-6-drjones@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E554C49C43
 for <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>; Thu,  5 Oct 2017 05:37:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id xH8fE5K-Nfz3 for <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>;
 Thu,  5 Oct 2017 05:37:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70])
 by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130C649C27
 for <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>; Thu,  5 Oct 2017 05:37:10 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170929113041.24371-6-drjones@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/options/kvmarm>,
 <mailto:kvmarm-request@lists.cs.columbia.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm>
List-Post: <mailto:kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
List-Help: <mailto:kvmarm-request@lists.cs.columbia.edu?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm>,
 <mailto:kvmarm-request@lists.cs.columbia.edu?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
To: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: cdall@linaro.org
List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu

On 29/09/17 12:30, 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)));
>  }
>  
>  bool kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> 

Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>

On a side note, I just had a look at our usage of KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING,
and we always seem to have a make_request/kick pair (which definitely
makes sense). Maybe there is room for a bit of consolidation there too.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...