On 2017-08-30 21:00, 'Lokesh Vutla' via Jailhouse wrote:
> Even though 'struct sgi' already supports for passing affinity levels,
> gic_handle_sgir_write() looks only for target fields and triggers sgis
> to its respective targets. This will fail in case of armv8 with affinity
> routing enabled. So parse all the affinity levels in sgi before sending
> sgi.
>
> Suggested-by: Nikhil Devshatwar <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Nikhil Devshatwar <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla <[email protected]>
> ---
> hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c
> b/hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c
> index 2019342..dc892ea 100644
> --- a/hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c
> +++ b/hypervisor/arch/arm-common/irqchip.c
> @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ void gic_handle_sgir_write(struct sgi *sgi, bool
> virt_input)
> {
> struct per_cpu *cpu_data = this_cpu_data();
> unsigned long targets = sgi->targets;
> + u64 mpidr, clst, sgi_clst, core;
> unsigned int cpu;
>
> if (sgi->routing_mode == 2) {
> @@ -139,14 +140,22 @@ void gic_handle_sgir_write(struct sgi *sgi, bool
> virt_input)
> sgi->targets = (1 << cpu_data->cpu_id);
Another case for the assumption "cpu_id == aff0". However, this one
seems harmless as we are in routing_mode = 2, and targets are ignored
then. We should replace that statement with comment that explains what
happens.
> } else {
> sgi->targets = 0;
> + sgi_clst = (u64)sgi->aff3 << MPIDR_LEVEL_SHIFT(3) |
> + (u64)sgi->aff2 << MPIDR_LEVEL_SHIFT(2) |
> + (u64)sgi->aff1 << MPIDR_LEVEL_SHIFT(1);
>
> for_each_cpu(cpu, cpu_data->cell->cpu_set) {
> + mpidr = per_cpu(cpu)->mpidr;
> + clst = mpidr & ~0xffUL;
> + core = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
> +
> if (sgi->routing_mode == 1) {
> /* Route to all (cell) CPUs but the caller. */
> if (cpu == cpu_data->cpu_id)
> continue;
> } else if (virt_input) {
> - if (!test_bit(cpu, &targets))
> + if (sgi_clst != clst ||
> + !test_bit(core, &targets))
> continue;
OK, forgot that this addresses parts of my concern in the other reply.
We should probably rename virt_input to something like
"affinity_routing" because that is what happens here now.
We can still stumble into the else branch below on GICv3 on GICD_SGIR
accesses. Just realized - again - that this results in a nop as
gicv2_target_cpu_map is empty on GICv3. And that is the desired behavior
on GICD_SGIR access when affinity routing is on. Deserves some comments
in the code.
> } else {
> /*
> @@ -161,7 +170,7 @@ void gic_handle_sgir_write(struct sgi *sgi, bool
> virt_input)
> }
>
> irqchip_set_pending(per_cpu(cpu), sgi->id);
> - sgi->targets |= (1 << cpu);
> + sgi->targets |= (1 << core);
And here we should explain in a comment that aff[1..3] are taken them
the original request.
> }
> }
>
>
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Jailhouse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
