Re: [PATCH v3 44/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle MOVI applied to a VLPI

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:08:01PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 28/08/17 19:18, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> When the guest issues a MOVI, we need to tell the physical ITS > >> that we're now targetti

Re: [PATCH v3 41/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Wire mapping/unmapping of VLPIs in VFIO irq bypass

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:53:30PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 30/08/17 12:46, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 26/08/17 20:48, Christoffer Dall wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:

Re: [PATCH v3 41/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Wire mapping/unmapping of VLPIs in VFIO irq bypass

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:53:30PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 30/08/17 12:46, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> On 26/08/17 20:48, Christoffer Dall wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:

Re: [PATCH v3 57/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Theory of operations

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:30:02PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 28/08/17 19:18, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:35PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> Yet another braindump so I can free some cells... > >> > >> Signed-off-by

Re: [PATCH v3 57/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Theory of operations

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:30:02PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 28/08/17 19:18, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:35PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> Yet another braindump so I can free some cells... > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Marc

Re: [PATCH v3 53/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Hook vPE scheduling into vgic flush/sync

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:59:46AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 28/08/17 19:17, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:31PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> The redistributor needs to be told which vPE is about to be run, > >> and tells us whethe

Re: [PATCH v3 53/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Hook vPE scheduling into vgic flush/sync

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:59:46AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 28/08/17 19:17, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:31PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> The redistributor needs to be told which vPE is about to be run, > >> and tells us whethe

Re: [PATCH v3 51/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add doorbell interrupt handling

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:31:41PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:18:50PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:44:04AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > On 31/07/17 18:26, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > When a vPE is

Re: [PATCH v3 51/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add doorbell interrupt handling

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 12:31:41PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:18:50PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:44:04AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > On 31/07/17 18:26, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > When a vPE is

Re: [PATCH v3 41/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Wire mapping/unmapping of VLPIs in VFIO irq bypass

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 26/08/17 20:48, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:19PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> Let's use the irq bypass mechanism introduced for platform device > >> interrupts to intercep

Re: [PATCH v3 41/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Wire mapping/unmapping of VLPIs in VFIO irq bypass

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:28:08AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 26/08/17 20:48, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:19PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> Let's use the irq bypass mechanism introduced for platform device > >> interrupts to intercep

Re: [PATCH RFC v3 2/9] KVM: arm/arm64: fix vcpu self-detection in vgic_v3_dispatch_sgi()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:35:23PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote: > The index in kvm->vcpus array and vcpu->vcpu_id are very different > things. Comparing struct kvm_vcpu pointers is a sure way to know. > > Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com> Acked-

Re: [PATCH RFC v3 2/9] KVM: arm/arm64: fix vcpu self-detection in vgic_v3_dispatch_sgi()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:35:23PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote: > The index in kvm->vcpus array and vcpu->vcpu_id are very different > things. Comparing struct kvm_vcpu pointers is a sure way to know. > > Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář Acked-by: Christoffer Dall > --- >

Re: [PATCH RFC v3 4/9] KVM: arm/arm64: use locking helpers in kvm_vgic_create()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:35:25PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote: > No new VCPUs can be created because we are holding the kvm->lock. > This means that if we successfuly lock all VCPUs, we'll be unlocking the > same set and there is no need to do extra bookkeeping. > > Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář

Re: [PATCH RFC v3 4/9] KVM: arm/arm64: use locking helpers in kvm_vgic_create()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:35:25PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote: > No new VCPUs can be created because we are holding the kvm->lock. > This means that if we successfuly lock all VCPUs, we'll be unlocking the > same set and there is no need to do extra bookkeeping. > > Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář >

Re: [PATCH RFC v3 8/9] KVM: implement kvm_for_each_vcpu with a list

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:35:29PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote: > Going through all VCPUs is more natural with a list and the RCU list can > work as lockless with our constraints. > > This makes kvm->vcpus lose most users, so it will be easier to make > something out of it. > > A nice side-effect

Re: [PATCH RFC v3 8/9] KVM: implement kvm_for_each_vcpu with a list

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:35:29PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote: > Going through all VCPUs is more natural with a list and the RCU list can > work as lockless with our constraints. > > This makes kvm->vcpus lose most users, so it will be easier to make > something out of it. > > A nice side-effect

Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Implement forwarding setting

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:38AM +0200, Auger Eric wrote: > Hi Christoffer, > > On 21/07/2017 15:13, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:52:38PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > >> Implements kvm_vgic_[set|unset]_forwarding. > >> >

Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Implement forwarding setting

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:38AM +0200, Auger Eric wrote: > Hi Christoffer, > > On 21/07/2017 15:13, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:52:38PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > >> Implements kvm_vgic_[set|unset]_forwarding. > >> >

Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Handle mapped level sensitive SPIs

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 04:33:42PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote: > Hi Christoffer, > > On 21/07/2017 14:11, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:52:37PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > >> Currently, the line level of unmapped level sensitive SPIs is > >>

Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Handle mapped level sensitive SPIs

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 04:33:42PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote: > Hi Christoffer, > > On 21/07/2017 14:11, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:52:37PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > >> Currently, the line level of unmapped level sensitive SPIs is > >>

Re: [PATCH v3 56/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Prevent heterogenous systems from using GICv4

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:34PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > The GICv4 architecture doesn't prevent CPUs implementing GICv4 to > cohabit with CPUs limited to GICv3 in the same system. > > This is mad (the sheduler would have to be made aware of the v4 *scheduler > capability), and we're

Re: [PATCH v3 56/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Prevent heterogenous systems from using GICv4

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:34PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > The GICv4 architecture doesn't prevent CPUs implementing GICv4 to > cohabit with CPUs limited to GICv3 in the same system. > > This is mad (the sheduler would have to be made aware of the v4 *scheduler > capability), and we're

Re: [PATCH v3 55/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Enable VLPI support

arc.zyng...@arm.com> So I'm wondering if we should have a per-VM option to turn this on or off, which may be useful for debugging and profiling. On the other hand, I can't see x86 having this feature, so maybe it's not worth it. For this patch: Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH v3 55/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Enable VLPI support

ndering if we should have a per-VM option to turn this on or off, which may be useful for debugging and profiling. On the other hand, I can't see x86 having this feature, so maybe it's not worth it. For this patch: Acked-by: Christoffer Dall > --- > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-param

Re: [PATCH v3 42/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle INT command applied to a VLPI

terrupt > using the normal userspace API... > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org> > --- > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgi

Re: [PATCH v3 42/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle INT command applied to a VLPI

terrupt > using the normal userspace API... > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier Acked-by: Christoffer Dall > --- > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c &g

Re: [PATCH v3 45/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle CLEAR applied to a VLPI

..@arm.com> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org> > --- > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c > index aaad577ce328..2c065c970ba0 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/ar

Re: [PATCH v3 45/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle CLEAR applied to a VLPI

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:23PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Handling CLEAR is pretty easy. Just ask the ITS driver to clear > the corresponding pending bit (which will turn into a CLEAR > command on the physical side). > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier Acked-by: C

Re: [PATCH v3 54/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Enable virtual cpuif if VLPIs can be delivered

* injected. Same thing if GICv4 is used, as VLPI > + * delivery is gated by ICH_HCR_EL2.En. >*/ > - if (static_branch_unlikely(_v3_cpuif_trap)) > + if (static_branch_unlikely(_v3_cpuif_trap) || > + cpu_if->its_vpe.its_vm) > write_gicreg(cpu_if->vgic_hcr, ICH_HCR_EL2); > } > > -- > 2.11.0 > Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH v3 54/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Enable virtual cpuif if VLPIs can be delivered

* delivery is gated by ICH_HCR_EL2.En. >*/ > - if (static_branch_unlikely(_v3_cpuif_trap)) > + if (static_branch_unlikely(_v3_cpuif_trap) || > + cpu_if->its_vpe.its_vm) > write_gicreg(cpu_if->vgic_hcr, ICH_HCR_EL2); > } > > -- > 2.11.0 > Acked-by: Christoffer Dall

Re: [PATCH v3 47/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Propagate property updates to VLPIs

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:25PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Upon updating a property, we propagate it all the way to the physical > ITS, and ask for an INV command to be executed there. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall

Re: [PATCH v3 47/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Propagate property updates to VLPIs

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:25PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Upon updating a property, we propagate it all the way to the physical > ITS, and ask for an INV command to be executed there. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier Acked-by: Christoffer Dall > --- > virt/kvm/arm/v

Re: [PATCH v3 49/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Propagate VLPI properties at map time

kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its, >u32 devid, u32 eventid, struct vgic_irq **irq); > struct vgic_its *vgic_msi_to_its(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_msi *msi); > +int update_lpi_config(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq, > + struct kvm_vcpu *filter_vcpu, bool needs_inv); > > bool vgic_is_v4_capable(struct kvm *kvm); > int vgic_v4_init(struct kvm *kvm); > -- > 2.11.0 > Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH v3 49/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Propagate VLPI properties at map time

s *its, >u32 devid, u32 eventid, struct vgic_irq **irq); > struct vgic_its *vgic_msi_to_its(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_msi *msi); > +int update_lpi_config(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq, > + struct kvm_vcpu *filter_vcpu, bool needs_inv); > > bool vgic_is_v4_capable(struct kvm *kvm); > int vgic_v4_init(struct kvm *kvm); > -- > 2.11.0 > Acked-by: Christoffer Dall

Re: [PATCH v3 52/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Use the doorbell interrupt as an unblocking source

rq) > + enable_irq(irq); > + } > +} > + > +void kvm_vgic_v4_disable_doorbell(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +{ > + if (vgic_is_v4_capable(vcpu->kvm)) { > + int irq = vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.irq; > + if (irq) > + disable_irq(irq); > + } > +} > -- > 2.11.0 > Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH v3 52/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Use the doorbell interrupt as an unblocking source

enable_irq(irq); > + } > +} > + > +void kvm_vgic_v4_disable_doorbell(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +{ > + if (vgic_is_v4_capable(vcpu->kvm)) { > + int irq = vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.irq; > + if (irq) > + disable_irq(irq); > + } > +} > -- > 2.11.0 > Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall

Re: [PATCH v3 51/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add doorbell interrupt handling

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:29PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > When a vPE is not running, a VLPI being made pending results in a > doorbell interrupt being delivered. Let's handle this interrupt > and update the pending_last flag that indicates that VLPIs are > pending. The corresponding vcpu is

Re: [PATCH v3 51/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add doorbell interrupt handling

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:29PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > When a vPE is not running, a VLPI being made pending results in a > doorbell interrupt being delivered. Let's handle this interrupt > and update the pending_last flag that indicates that VLPIs are > pending. The corresponding vcpu is

Re: [PATCH v3 51/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add doorbell interrupt handling

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:44:04AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 31/07/17 18:26, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > When a vPE is not running, a VLPI being made pending results in a > > doorbell interrupt being delivered. Let's handle this interrupt > > and update the pending_last flag that indicates that

Re: [PATCH v3 51/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add doorbell interrupt handling

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:44:04AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 31/07/17 18:26, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > When a vPE is not running, a VLPI being made pending results in a > > doorbell interrupt being delivered. Let's handle this interrupt > > and update the pending_last flag that indicates that

Re: [PATCH v3 48/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle INVALL applied to a vPE

y: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org> > --- > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 15 +-- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c

Re: [PATCH v3 48/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle INVALL applied to a vPE

y: Marc Zyngier Acked-by: Christoffer Dall > --- > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 15 +-- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c > index 9e46081e5f15..b395df1bf47c 100644 > --- a/

Re: [PATCH v3 50/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Use pending_last as a scheduling hint

return false; > > + if (vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.pending_last) > + return true; > + > spin_lock(_cpu->ap_list_lock); > > list_for_each_entry(irq, _cpu->ap_list_head, ap_list) { > -- > 2.11.0 > Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH v3 50/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Use pending_last as a scheduling hint

; > > + if (vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.pending_last) > + return true; > + > spin_lock(_cpu->ap_list_lock); > > list_for_each_entry(irq, _cpu->ap_list_head, ap_list) { > -- > 2.11.0 > Acked-by: Christoffer Dall

Re: [PATCH v3 46/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle MOVALL applied to a vPE

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:24PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > The current implementation of MOVALL doesn't allow us to call > into the core ITS code as we hold a number of spinlocks. > > Let's try a method used in other parts of the code, were we copy > the intids of the candicate interrupts,

Re: [PATCH v3 46/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle MOVALL applied to a vPE

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:24PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > The current implementation of MOVALL doesn't allow us to call > into the core ITS code as we hold a number of spinlocks. > > Let's try a method used in other parts of the code, were we copy > the intids of the candicate interrupts,

Re: [PATCH v3 44/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle MOVI applied to a VLPI

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > When the guest issues a MOVI, we need to tell the physical ITS > that we're now targetting a new vcpu. This is done by extracting > the current mapping, updating the target, and reapplying the > mapping. The core ITS code should do

Re: [PATCH v3 44/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Handle MOVI applied to a VLPI

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:22PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > When the guest issues a MOVI, we need to tell the physical ITS > that we're now targetting a new vcpu. This is done by extracting > the current mapping, updating the target, and reapplying the > mapping. The core ITS code should do

Re: [PATCH v3 57/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Theory of operations

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:35PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Yet another braindump so I can free some cells... > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > --- > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c | 68 > + > 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+) >

Re: [PATCH v3 57/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Theory of operations

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:35PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Yet another braindump so I can free some cells... > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > --- > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c | 68 > + > 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+) > > diff --git

Re: [PATCH v3 43/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Unmap VLPI when freeing an LPI

its_unmap_vlpi(ite->irq->host_irq); nit: should we raise a warning on a bad return value? Otherwise: Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org> > + > vgic_put_irq(kvm, ite->irq); > + } > > kfree(ite); > } > -- > 2.11.0 >

Re: [PATCH v3 43/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Unmap VLPI when freeing an LPI

irq->host_irq); nit: should we raise a warning on a bad return value? Otherwise: Acked-by: Christoffer Dall > + > vgic_put_irq(kvm, ite->irq); > + } > > kfree(ite); > } > -- > 2.11.0 >

Re: [PATCH v3 53/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Hook vPE scheduling into vgic flush/sync

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:31PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > The redistributor needs to be told which vPE is about to be run, > and tells us whether there is any pending VLPI on exit. > > Let's add the scheduling calls to the vgic flush/sync functions, > allowing the VLPIs to be delivered to

Re: [PATCH v3 53/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Hook vPE scheduling into vgic flush/sync

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:31PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > The redistributor needs to be told which vPE is about to be run, > and tells us whether there is any pending VLPI on exit. > > Let's add the scheduling calls to the vgic flush/sync functions, > allowing the VLPIs to be delivered to

Re: [PATCH v3 36/59] KVM: arm: Select ARM_GIC_V3 and ARM_GIC_V3_ITS

fdefs, let's just select the whole > of the GICv3 suport code. > > You know you want it. Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Re: [PATCH v3 36/59] KVM: arm: Select ARM_GIC_V3 and ARM_GIC_V3_ITS

fdefs, let's just select the whole > of the GICv3 suport code. > > You know you want it. Acked-by: Christoffer Dall > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > --- > arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/Kconfig b

Re: [PATCH v3 39/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add property field and per-VM predicate

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:17PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Add a new has_gicv4 field in the global VGIC state that indicates > whether the HW is GICv4 capable, as a per-VM predicate indicating > if there is a possibility for a VM to support direct injection > (the above being true and the VM

Re: [PATCH v3 39/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add property field and per-VM predicate

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:17PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Add a new has_gicv4 field in the global VGIC state that indicates > whether the HW is GICv4 capable, as a per-VM predicate indicating > if there is a possibility for a VM to support direct injection > (the above being true and the VM

Re: [PATCH v3 41/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Wire mapping/unmapping of VLPIs in VFIO irq bypass

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:19PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Let's use the irq bypass mechanism introduced for platform device > interrupts to intercept the virtual PCIe endpoint configuration > and establish our LPI->VLPI mapping. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > --- >

Re: [PATCH v3 41/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Wire mapping/unmapping of VLPIs in VFIO irq bypass

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:19PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Let's use the irq bypass mechanism introduced for platform device > interrupts to intercept the virtual PCIe endpoint configuration > and establish our LPI->VLPI mapping. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > --- >

Re: [PATCH v3 38/59] KVM: arm/arm64: vITS: Add MSI translation helpers

er_msi(kvm, its, msi->devid, msi->data); > + mutex_unlock(>its_lock); > > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h > index da254ae29aec..3002b72d938b 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h > @@ -225,4 +225,8 @@ int vgic_debug_destroy(struct kvm *kvm); > bool lock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm); > void unlock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm); > > +int vgic_its_resolve_lpi(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its, > + u32 devid, u32 eventid, struct vgic_irq **irq); > +struct vgic_its *vgic_msi_to_its(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_msi *msi); > + > #endif > -- > 2.11.0 > Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH v3 40/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add init/teardown of the per-VM vPE irq domain

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:18PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > In order to control the GICv4 view of virtual CPUs, we rely > on an irqdomain allocated for that purpose. Let's add a couple > of helpers to that effect. > > At the same time, the vgic data structures gain new fields to > track all

Re: [PATCH v3 38/59] KVM: arm/arm64: vITS: Add MSI translation helpers

vid, msi->data); > + mutex_unlock(>its_lock); > > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h > index da254ae29aec..3002b72d938b 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.h > @@ -225,4 +225,8 @@ int vgic_debug_destroy(struct kvm *kvm); > bool lock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm); > void unlock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm); > > +int vgic_its_resolve_lpi(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its, > + u32 devid, u32 eventid, struct vgic_irq **irq); > +struct vgic_its *vgic_msi_to_its(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_msi *msi); > + > #endif > -- > 2.11.0 > Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall

Re: [PATCH v3 40/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add init/teardown of the per-VM vPE irq domain

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 06:26:18PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > In order to control the GICv4 view of virtual CPUs, we rely > on an irqdomain allocated for that purpose. Let's add a couple > of helpers to that effect. > > At the same time, the vgic data structures gain new fields to > track all

Re: [PATCH v3 37/59] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Move kvm_vgic_destroy call around

s the beginning of kvm_arch_destroy_vm, > which seems more sensible. > Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> > --- > virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > d

Re: [PATCH v3 37/59] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Move kvm_vgic_destroy call around

s the beginning of kvm_arch_destroy_vm, > which seems more sensible. > Acked-by: Christoffer Dall > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > --- > virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c &g

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Fri, Aug 25 2017 at 2:57:21 pm BST, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in: >> >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Fri, Aug 25 2017 at 2:57:21 pm BST, Stephen Rothwell > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h >> >> between commit: >> >>

Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: constify seq_operations and file_operations

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:25:36PM +0530, Arvind Yadav wrote: > vgic_debug_seq_ops and file_operations are not supposed to change > at runtime and none of the structures is modified. > > Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav Applied, thanks. -Christoffer > --- >

Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: constify seq_operations and file_operations

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:25:36PM +0530, Arvind Yadav wrote: > vgic_debug_seq_ops and file_operations are not supposed to change > at runtime and none of the structures is modified. > > Signed-off-by: Arvind Yadav Applied, thanks. -Christoffer > --- > virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-debug.c | 4 ++--

Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Handle mapped level sensitive SPIs

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 04:35:26PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/07/2017 17:41, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 25/07/17 15:48, Christoffer Dall wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:47:55PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >>> On 21/07/17 14:03, Christoff

Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Handle mapped level sensitive SPIs

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 04:35:26PM +0200, Auger Eric wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/07/2017 17:41, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 25/07/17 15:48, Christoffer Dall wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:47:55PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >>> On 21/07/17 14:03, Christoff

Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] support user space to query RAS extension feature

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:11:54PM +0800, Dongjiu Geng wrote: You should put KVM and arm64 in the subject here. > In armv8.2 RAS extension, it adds virtual SError exception > syndrome registeri(VSESR_EL2), user space will specify that > value. so user space will check whether CPU feature has RAS

Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] support user space to query RAS extension feature

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 10:11:54PM +0800, Dongjiu Geng wrote: You should put KVM and arm64 in the subject here. > In armv8.2 RAS extension, it adds virtual SError exception > syndrome registeri(VSESR_EL2), user space will specify that > value. so user space will check whether CPU feature has RAS

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: optimize the kvm_vcpu_on_spin

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:25 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 08.08.2017 06:05, Longpeng(Mike) wrote: >> This is a simple optimization for kvm_vcpu_on_spin, the >> main idea is described in patch-1's commit msg. >> >> I did some tests base on the RFC version, the result shows >>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] KVM: optimize the kvm_vcpu_on_spin

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:25 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 08.08.2017 06:05, Longpeng(Mike) wrote: >> This is a simple optimization for kvm_vcpu_on_spin, the >> main idea is described in patch-1's commit msg. >> >> I did some tests base on the RFC version, the result shows >> that it can

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: arm: implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel()

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 12:05:35PM +0800, Longpeng(Mike) wrote: >> This implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel() for ARM. >> >> Signed-off-by: Longpeng(Mike) <longpe...@huawei.com>

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: arm: implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel()

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 12:05:35PM +0800, Longpeng(Mike) wrote: >> This implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel() for ARM. >> >> Signed-off-by: Longpeng(Mike) >> --- >> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +- >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: arm: implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel()

- return false; > + return vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu); > } > > /* Just ensure a guest exit from a particular CPU */ > -- > 1.8.3.1 > > I'm not taking any position on whether this series makes sense overall or not (it's a bit concerning to do this without having meas

Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: arm: implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel()

return vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu); > } > > /* Just ensure a guest exit from a particular CPU */ > -- > 1.8.3.1 > > I'm not taking any position on whether this series makes sense overall or not (it's a bit concerning to do this without having measured a benefit), but for the arm/arm64 change: Acked-by: Christoffer Dall

Re: [PATCH] arm64: KVM: Reject non-compliant HVC calls from guest kernel

Hi Shanker, On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 02:03:28PM -0500, Shanker Donthineni wrote: > The SMC/HVC instructions with an immediate value non-zero are not compliant > according to 'SMC calling convention system software document'. Add a > validation check in handle_hvc() to avoid malicious HVC calls

Re: [PATCH] arm64: KVM: Reject non-compliant HVC calls from guest kernel

Hi Shanker, On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 02:03:28PM -0500, Shanker Donthineni wrote: > The SMC/HVC instructions with an immediate value non-zero are not compliant > according to 'SMC calling convention system software document'. Add a > validation check in handle_hvc() to avoid malicious HVC calls

Re: [PATCH 10/11] arm64/kvm: context-switch ptrauth registers

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:26:07PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:00:14PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:01:31PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > When pointer authentication is supported, a guest may wish to use it. >

Re: [PATCH 10/11] arm64/kvm: context-switch ptrauth registers

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:26:07PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:00:14PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:01:31PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > When pointer authentication is supported, a guest may wish to use it. >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/38] KVM: arm/arm64: Check if nested virtualization is in use

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 10:07:40AM -0400, Jintack Lim wrote: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:58:30AM -0500, Jintack Lim wrote: > >> Nested virtualizaion is in use only if all

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/38] KVM: arm/arm64: Check if nested virtualization is in use

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 10:07:40AM -0400, Jintack Lim wrote: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:58:30AM -0500, Jintack Lim wrote: > >> Nested virtualizaion is in use only if all three conditions are met: > >>

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 38/38] KVM: arm64: Respect the virtual CPTR_EL2.TCPAC setting

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:03:35AM -0400, Jintack Lim wrote: > Hi Christoffer, > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Christoffer Dall <cd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:59:04AM -0500, Jintack Lim wrote: > >> Forward CPACR_EL1 traps to the v

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 38/38] KVM: arm64: Respect the virtual CPTR_EL2.TCPAC setting

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:03:35AM -0400, Jintack Lim wrote: > Hi Christoffer, > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:59:04AM -0500, Jintack Lim wrote: > >> Forward CPACR_EL1 traps to the virtual EL2 if virtual CPT

Re: [PATCH 09/11] arm64/kvm: preserve host HCR_EL2 value

ode. > > For the hyp TLB maintenance code, __tlb_switch_to_host_vhe() is updated > to toggle the TGE bit with a RMW sequence, as we already do in > __tlb_switch_to_guest_vhe(). > > The now unused HCR_HOST_VHE_FLAGS definition is removed. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl.

Re: [PATCH 09/11] arm64/kvm: preserve host HCR_EL2 value

ode. > > For the hyp TLB maintenance code, __tlb_switch_to_host_vhe() is updated > to toggle the TGE bit with a RMW sequence, as we already do in > __tlb_switch_to_guest_vhe(). > > The now unused HCR_HOST_VHE_FLAGS definition is removed. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland > Cc: Chr

Re: [PATCH 10/11] arm64/kvm: context-switch ptrauth registers

of this as well. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> > Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.d...@linaro.org> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> > Cc: kvm...@lists.cs.columbia.edu > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 23 +++

Re: [PATCH 10/11] arm64/kvm: context-switch ptrauth registers

of this as well. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland > Cc: Christoffer Dall > Cc: Marc Zyngier > Cc: kvm...@lists.cs.columbia.edu > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 23 +- > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_hyp.h | 7 +++ > arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 21 ++

Re: [RFC] KVM: optimize the kvm_vcpu_on_spin

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 02:22:57PM +0800, Longpeng(Mike) wrote: > We had disscuss the idea here: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg140593.html This is not a very nice way to start a commit description. Please provide the necessary background to understand your change directly in the commit

Re: [RFC] KVM: optimize the kvm_vcpu_on_spin

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 02:22:57PM +0800, Longpeng(Mike) wrote: > We had disscuss the idea here: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg140593.html This is not a very nice way to start a commit description. Please provide the necessary background to understand your change directly in the commit

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/38] Nested Virtualization on KVM/ARM

ages and comments from the perspective of supporting > execution environments to VMs, rather than from the perspective of the guest > hypervisor running in them. > - Fixed a few bugs to make it run on the FastModel. > - Tested on ARMv8.3 with four configurations. (host/guest.

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/38] Nested Virtualization on KVM/ARM

ages and comments from the perspective of supporting > execution environments to VMs, rather than from the perspective of the guest > hypervisor running in them. > - Fixed a few bugs to make it run on the FastModel. > - Tested on ARMv8.3 with four configurations. (host/guest.

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 38/38] KVM: arm64: Respect the virtual CPTR_EL2.TCPAC setting

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:59:04AM -0500, Jintack Lim wrote: > Forward CPACR_EL1 traps to the virtual EL2 if virtual CPTR_EL2 is > configured to trap CPACR_EL1 accesses from EL1. > > This is for recursive nested virtualization. > > Signed-off-by: Jintack Lim > --- >

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 38/38] KVM: arm64: Respect the virtual CPTR_EL2.TCPAC setting

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:59:04AM -0500, Jintack Lim wrote: > Forward CPACR_EL1 traps to the virtual EL2 if virtual CPTR_EL2 is > configured to trap CPACR_EL1 accesses from EL1. > > This is for recursive nested virtualization. > > Signed-off-by: Jintack Lim > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c |

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 37/38] KVM: arm64: Respect the virtual HCR_EL2.NV1 bit setting

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:59:03AM -0500, Jintack Lim wrote: > Forward ELR_EL1, SPSR_EL1 and VBAR_EL1 traps to the virtual EL2 if the > virtual HCR_EL2.NV bit is set. > > This is for recursive nested virtualization. > > Signed-off-by: Jintack Lim > --- >

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >