| Message ID | 20171110083755.GI14144@cbox (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 10/11/17 08:37, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:08:36PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 07/11/17 21:28, Auger Eric wrote: >>> Hi Marc, >>> >>> On 27/10/2017 16:28, 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. >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> >>>> --- >>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 3 +++ >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c >>>> index 0b7e648e7a0c..2e77c7c83942 100644 >>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c >>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c >>>> @@ -296,6 +296,9 @@ static int update_lpi_config(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq, >>>> spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock); >>>> } >>>> >>>> + if (irq->hw) >>>> + return its_prop_update_vlpi(irq->host_irq, prop, true); >>>> + >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>> I am confused by the vgic_queue_irq_unlock() on the "hw" path. Why is it >>> needed in hw mode? >> >> It's not. I guess we could bypass this altogether and take a short cut >> after having updated the priority and enabled fields. >> > > I can apply this on top of the series as well if you're happy with it: > > commit b54fba93b1330803a59ca75f3a5102e22cadc871 (HEAD -> next-gicv4) > Author: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> > Date: Fri Nov 10 09:34:54 2017 +0100 > > KVM: arm/arm64: Don't queue VLPIs on INV/INVALL > > Since VLPIs are injected directly by the hardware there's no need to > mark these as pending in software and queue them on the AP list. > > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c > index c93ecd4a903b..a3754ec719c4 100644 > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c > @@ -292,11 +292,14 @@ static int update_lpi_config(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq, > irq->priority = LPI_PROP_PRIORITY(prop); > irq->enabled = LPI_PROP_ENABLE_BIT(prop); > > - vgic_queue_irq_unlock(kvm, irq, flags); > - } else { > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->irq_lock, flags); > + if (!irq->hw) { > + vgic_queue_irq_unlock(kvm, irq, flags); > + return 0; > + } > } > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->irq_lock, flags); > + > if (irq->hw) > return its_prop_update_vlpi(irq->host_irq, prop, needs_inv); > Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> M.
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c index c93ecd4a903b..a3754ec719c4 100644 --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c @@ -292,11 +292,14 @@ static int update_lpi_config(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq, irq->priority = LPI_PROP_PRIORITY(prop); irq->enabled = LPI_PROP_ENABLE_BIT(prop); - vgic_queue_irq_unlock(kvm, irq, flags); - } else { - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->irq_lock, flags); + if (!irq->hw) { + vgic_queue_irq_unlock(kvm, irq, flags); + return 0; + } } + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->irq_lock, flags); + if (irq->hw) return its_prop_update_vlpi(irq->host_irq, prop, needs_inv);