On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:30:15AM +0000, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote on 2013-04-04:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 08:40:13AM +0800, Yang Zhang wrote:
> >> From: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zh...@intel.com>
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Zhang <yang.z.zh...@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 9 +++++++++ arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h | 2 ++
> >> virt/kvm/ioapic.c | 43
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ virt/kvm/ioapic.h |
> >> 1 + 4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> >> index 96ab160..9c041fa 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> >> @@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ static inline int apic_test_vector(int vec, void
> >> *bitmap)
> >> return test_bit(VEC_POS(vec), (bitmap) + REG_POS(vec));
> >> }
> >> +bool kvm_apic_pending_eoi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int vector)
> >> +{
> >> + struct kvm_lapic *apic = vcpu->arch.apic;
> >> +
> >> + return apic_test_vector(vector, apic->regs + APIC_ISR) ||
> >> + apic_test_vector(vector, apic->regs + APIC_IRR);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static inline void apic_set_vector(int vec, void *bitmap)
> >> {
> >> set_bit(VEC_POS(vec), (bitmap) + REG_POS(vec));
> >> @@ -1665,6 +1673,7 @@ void kvm_apic_post_state_restore(struct kvm_vcpu
> > *vcpu,
> >> apic->highest_isr_cache = -1;
> >> kvm_x86_ops->hwapic_isr_update(vcpu->kvm,
> >> apic_find_highest_isr(apic)); kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
> >> + kvm_rtc_irq_restore(vcpu); }
> >>
> >> void __kvm_migrate_apic_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> >> index 967519c..004d2ad 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h
> >> @@ -170,4 +170,6 @@ static inline bool kvm_apic_has_events(struct
> > kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> return vcpu->arch.apic->pending_events;
> >> }
> >> +bool kvm_apic_pending_eoi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int vector);
> >> +
> >> #endif
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/ioapic.c b/virt/kvm/ioapic.c
> >> index 8664812..0b12b17 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/ioapic.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/ioapic.c
> >> @@ -90,6 +90,47 @@ static unsigned long ioapic_read_indirect(struct
> > kvm_ioapic *ioapic,
> >> return result;
> >> }
> >> +static void rtc_irq_reset(struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic)
> >> +{
> >> + ioapic->rtc_status.pending_eoi = 0;
> >> + bitmap_zero(ioapic->rtc_status.dest_map, KVM_MAX_VCPUS);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void rtc_irq_restore(struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic)
> >> +{
> >> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> >> + int vector, i, pending_eoi = 0;
> >> +
> >> + if (RTC_GSI >= IOAPIC_NUM_PINS)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + vector = ioapic->redirtbl[RTC_GSI].fields.vector;
> >> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, ioapic->kvm) {
> >> + if (kvm_apic_pending_eoi(vcpu, vector)) {
> >> + pending_eoi++;
> >> + __set_bit(vcpu->vcpu_id, ioapic->rtc_status.dest_map);
> > You should cleat dest_map at the beginning to get rid of stale bits.
> I thought kvm_set_ioapic is called only after save/restore or migration. And
> the ioapic should be reset successfully before call it. So the dest_map is
> empty before call rtc_irq_restore().
> But it is possible kvm_set_ioapic is called beside save/restore or migration.
> Right?
>
First of all userspace should not care when it calls kvm_set_ioapic()
the kernel need to do the right thing. Second, believe it or not,
kvm_ioapic_reset() is not called during system reset. Instead userspace
reset it by calling kvm_set_ioapic() with ioapic state after reset.
> >
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> + ioapic->rtc_status.pending_eoi = pending_eoi;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +void kvm_rtc_irq_restore(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> + struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic = vcpu->kvm->arch.vioapic;
> >> + int vector;
> >> +
> >> + if (!ioapic)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> > Can this be called if ioapic == NULL?
> Yes. IIRC, unit test will test lapic function without ioapic.
Unit test is a guest code. This has nothing to do with a guest code.
Unit test is not the one who creates lapic.
>
> > Should check for if (RTC_GSI >= IOAPIC_NUM_PINS) here too.
> Not necessary. kvm_rtc_irq_restore is called from "arch/x86/" and we have the
> defination:
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86
> #define RTC_GSI 8
>
> The check will be false always. As the logic you suggested below, this check
> is necessary for _all() not _one();
OK.
>
> >
> >> + spin_lock(&ioapic->lock);
> >> + vector = ioapic->redirtbl[RTC_GSI].fields.vector;
> >> + if (kvm_apic_pending_eoi(vcpu, vector)) {
> >> + __set_bit(vcpu->vcpu_id, ioapic->rtc_status.dest_map);
> >> + ioapic->rtc_status.pending_eoi++;
> > The bit may have been set already. The logic should be:
> Right.
>
> >
> >
> > new_val = kvm_apic_pending_eoi(vcpu, vector)
> > old_val = set_bit(vcpu_id, dest_map)
> >
> > if (new_val == old_val)
> > return;
> >
> > if (new_val) {
> > __set_bit(vcpu_id, dest_map);
> > pending_eoi++;
> > } else {
> > __clear_bit(vcpu_id, dest_map);
> > pending_eoi--;
> > }
> >
> > The naming of above two functions are not good either. Call
> > them something like kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_all() and
> > kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one(). And _all should call _one() for
> > each vcpu. Make __rtc_irq_eoi_tracking_restore_one() that does not
> > take ioapic lock and call it from kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one()
> > surrounded by locks.
> Ok. Just confirm whether I am understanding correct:
>
> kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_all():
> {
> for_each_vcpu:
> kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one():
__rtc_irq_eoi_tracking_restore_one();
Since caller will have the lock already.
> }
>
> kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one():
> {
> lock();
> __rtc_irq_eoi_tracking_restore_one():
> unlock();
> }
>
> kvm_set_ioapic()
> {
> kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_all();
> }
>
> kvm_apic_post_state_restore()
> {
> kvm_rtc_eoi_tracking_restore_one();
> }
>
Yes.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
