From: julien.grall@linaro.org (Julien Grall)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] arm/xen: Initialize event channels earlier
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:35:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E7EA78.5020305@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401281651400.4373@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
On 01/28/2014 05:13 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Event channels driver needs to be initialized very early. Until now, Xen
>> initialization was done after all CPUs was bring up.
>>
>> We can safely move the initialization to an early initcall.
>>
>> Also use a cpu notifier to:
>> - Register the VCPU when the CPU is prepared
>> - Enable event channel IRQ when the CPU is running
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
>
> Did you test this patch in Dom0 as well as in DomUs?
>
Only try dom0. I will try domU.
>
>> arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
>> index 293eeea..39b668e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>> #include <linux/cpuidle.h>
>> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>> +#include <linux/cpu.h>
>>
>> #include <linux/mm.h>
>>
>> @@ -154,12 +155,11 @@ int xen_unmap_domain_mfn_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_unmap_domain_mfn_range);
>>
>> -static void __init xen_percpu_init(void *unused)
>> +static void xen_percpu_init(int cpu)
>> {
>> struct vcpu_register_vcpu_info info;
>> struct vcpu_info *vcpup;
>> int err;
>> - int cpu = get_cpu();
>>
>> pr_info("Xen: initializing cpu%d\n", cpu);
>> vcpup = per_cpu_ptr(xen_vcpu_info, cpu);
>> @@ -170,9 +170,11 @@ static void __init xen_percpu_init(void *unused)
>> err = HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info, cpu, &info);
>> BUG_ON(err);
>> per_cpu(xen_vcpu, cpu) = vcpup;
>> +}
>>
>> +static void xen_interrupt_init(void)
>> +{
>> enable_percpu_irq(xen_events_irq, 0);
>> - put_cpu();
>> }
>>
>> static void xen_restart(enum reboot_mode reboot_mode, const char *cmd)
>> @@ -193,6 +195,36 @@ static void xen_power_off(void)
>> BUG();
>> }
>>
>> +static irqreturn_t xen_arm_callback(int irq, void *arg)
>> +{
>> + xen_hvm_evtchn_do_upcall();
>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int xen_cpu_notification(struct notifier_block *self,
>> + unsigned long action,
>> + void *hcpu)
>> +{
>> + int cpu = (long)hcpu;
>> +
>> + switch (action) {
>> + case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
>> + xen_percpu_init(cpu);
>> + break;
>> + case CPU_STARTING:
>> + xen_interrupt_init();
>> + break;
>
> Is CPU_STARTING guaranteed to be called on the new cpu only?
Yes.
> If so, why not call both xen_percpu_init and xen_interrupt_init on
> CPU_STARTING?
Just in case that xen_vcpu is used somewhere else by a cpu notifier
callback CPU_STARTING. We don't know which callback is called first.
> As it stands I think you introduced a subtle change (that might be OK
> but I think is unintentional): xen_percpu_init might not be called from
> the same cpu as its target anymore.
No, xen_percpu_init and xen_interrupt_init are called on the boot cpu at
the end of xen_guest_init.
>
>
>> + default:
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return NOTIFY_OK;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct notifier_block xen_cpu_notifier = {
>> + .notifier_call = xen_cpu_notification,
>> +};
>> +
>> /*
>> * see Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/xen.txt for the
>> * documentation of the Xen Device Tree format.
>> @@ -209,6 +241,7 @@ static int __init xen_guest_init(void)
>> const char *xen_prefix = "xen,xen-";
>> struct resource res;
>> phys_addr_t grant_frames;
>> + int cpu;
>>
>> node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "xen,xen");
>> if (!node) {
>> @@ -281,9 +314,27 @@ static int __init xen_guest_init(void)
>> disable_cpuidle();
>> disable_cpufreq();
>>
>> + xen_init_IRQ();
>> +
>> + if (xen_events_irq < 0)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>
> Since you are moving this code to xen_guest_init, you can check for
> xen_events_irq earlier on, where we parse the irq from device tree.
Will do.
--
Julien Grall
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-28 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-28 14:54 [PATCH] arm/xen: Initialize event channels earlier Julien Grall
2014-01-28 17:13 ` Stefano Stabellini
2014-01-28 17:35 ` Julien Grall [this message]
2014-01-28 17:46 ` [Xen-devel] " Stefano Stabellini
2014-01-28 18:00 ` Julien Grall
2014-01-28 18:11 ` Stefano Stabellini
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=52E7EA78.5020305@linaro.org \
--to=julien.grall@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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).