From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@linaro.org>
To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] ARM: VGIC: remove gic_clear_pending_irqs()
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:42:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <73633804-76ff-aacc-d71d-ec9deb67be9d@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1710251707070.574@sstabellini-ThinkPad-X260>
Hi,
On 26/10/17 01:14, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> gic_clear_pending_irqs() was not only misnamed, but also misplaced, as
>> a function solely dealing with the GIC emulation should not live in gic.c.
>> Move the functionality of this function into its only caller in vgic.c
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>
> The reason why gic_clear_pending_irqs is in gic.c is that lr_mask and
> lr_pending are considered part of the gic driver (gic.c). On the other
> end, inflight is part of the vgic.
>
> As an example, the idea is that the code outside of gic.c (for example
> vgic.c) shouldn't have to know, or have to care, whether a given IRQ is
> in the lr_pending queue or actually in a LR register.
I can understand that the lr_pending queue *should* be logical
continuation of the LR registers, something like spill-over LRs.
Though I wasn't aware of this before ;-)
So I can see that from a *logical* point of view it looks like it
belongs to the hardware part of the GIC (more specifically gic-vgic.c),
which deals with the actual LRs. But I guess this is somewhat of a grey
area.
BUT:
This is a design choice of the VGIC, and one which the KVM VGIC design
for instance does *not* share. Also my earlier Xen VGIC rework patches
got rid of this as well (because dealing with two lists is too complicated).
Also, the name is misleading: gic_clear_pending_irqs() does not hint at
all that this is dealing with the GIC emulation, I think it should read
vgic_vcpu_clear_pending_irqs().
And as it accesses VGIC specific data structures only, I don't think it
belongs to gic.c, really.
So I could live with moving it into the new gic-vgic.c, let me see if
that works.
The need for this patch didn't come out of the blue, I actually need it
to be able to reuse gic.c with *any* other VGIC implementation. And this
applies to both a VGIC rework and the KVM VGIC port.
These lr_queue and lr_pending queues are really an implementation detail
of the existing *VGIC*, and, more importantly: they refer to the struct
pending_irq, which is definitely a VGIC detail.
The rabbit to follow in this series is to strictly split the usage of
struct pending_irq from the hardware GIC driver. The KVM VGIC does not
have a "struct pending_irq", so we can't have anything mentioning that
in code that should survive a KVM VGIC port.
So short of replacing gic.c at all, moving everything mentioning
pending_irq out of gic.c is the only option.
Cheers,
Andre.
> lr_mask and lr_pending are only accessed from gic.c. The only exception
> is the initialization (INIT_LIST_HEAD(&v->arch.vgic.lr_pending)).
>
>
>> ---
>> xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 11 -----------
>> xen/arch/arm/vgic.c | 4 +++-
>> xen/include/asm-arm/gic.h | 1 -
>> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
>> index ed363f6c37..75b2e0e0ca 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
>> @@ -675,17 +675,6 @@ out:
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&v->arch.vgic.lock, flags);
>> }
>>
>> -void gic_clear_pending_irqs(struct vcpu *v)
>> -{
>> - struct pending_irq *p, *t;
>> -
>> - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&v->arch.vgic.lock));
>> -
>> - v->arch.lr_mask = 0;
>> - list_for_each_entry_safe ( p, t, &v->arch.vgic.lr_pending, lr_queue )
>> - gic_remove_from_lr_pending(v, p);
>> -}
>> -
>> int gic_events_need_delivery(void)
>> {
>> struct vcpu *v = current;
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c
>> index d8acbbeaaa..451a306a98 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c
>> @@ -504,7 +504,9 @@ void vgic_clear_pending_irqs(struct vcpu *v)
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&v->arch.vgic.lock, flags);
>> list_for_each_entry_safe ( p, t, &v->arch.vgic.inflight_irqs, inflight )
>> list_del_init(&p->inflight);
>> - gic_clear_pending_irqs(v);
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe ( p, t, &v->arch.vgic.lr_pending, lr_queue )
>> + gic_remove_from_lr_pending(v, p);
>> + v->arch.lr_mask = 0;
>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&v->arch.vgic.lock, flags);
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/gic.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/gic.h
>> index d3d7bda50d..2f248301ce 100644
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/gic.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/gic.h
>> @@ -236,7 +236,6 @@ int gic_remove_irq_from_guest(struct domain *d, unsigned int virq,
>> struct irq_desc *desc);
>>
>> extern void gic_inject(void);
>> -extern void gic_clear_pending_irqs(struct vcpu *v);
>> extern int gic_events_need_delivery(void);
>>
>> extern void init_maintenance_interrupt(void);
>> --
>> 2.14.1
>>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-10 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-19 12:48 [PATCH 00/12] ARM: VGIC/GIC separation cleanups Andre Przywara
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 01/12] ARM: remove unneeded gic.h inclusions Andre Przywara
2017-10-25 23:55 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 02/12] ARM: vGIC: fix nr_irq definition Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:00 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 03/12] ARM: VGIC: remove gic_clear_pending_irqs() Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:14 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-11-10 16:42 ` Andre Przywara [this message]
2017-11-16 1:17 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-11-16 14:32 ` Julien Grall
2017-12-06 18:01 ` Andre Przywara
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 04/12] ARM: VGIC: move gic_remove_irq_from_queues() Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:19 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-10-26 8:22 ` Julien Grall
2017-11-10 17:14 ` Andre Przywara
2017-11-10 19:04 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 05/12] ARM: VGIC: move gic_remove_from_lr_pending() Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:20 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-12-06 18:02 ` Andre Przywara
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 06/12] ARM: VGIC: streamline gic_restore_pending_irqs() Andre Przywara
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 07/12] ARM: VGIC: split gic.c to observe hardware/virtual GIC separation Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:37 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-12-06 18:04 ` Andre Przywara
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 08/12] ARM: VGIC: split up gic_dump_info() to cover virtual part separately Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:41 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 09/12] ARM: VGIC: rework events_need_delivery() Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:47 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 10/12] ARM: VGIC: factor out vgic_connect_hw_irq() Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:49 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 11/12] ARM: VGIC: factor out vgic_get_hw_irq_desc() Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:50 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-10-19 12:48 ` [PATCH 12/12] ARM: VGIC: rework gicv[23]_update_lr to not use pending_irq Andre Przywara
2017-10-26 0:51 ` Stefano Stabellini
2017-10-26 8:28 ` Julien Grall
2017-12-07 18:33 ` Andre Przywara
2017-10-19 15:37 ` [PATCH 00/12] ARM: VGIC/GIC separation cleanups Andre Przywara
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=73633804-76ff-aacc-d71d-ec9deb67be9d@linaro.org \
--to=andre.przywara@linaro.org \
--cc=julien.grall@linaro.org \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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).