[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 0/2] xen/arm: maintenance_interrupt SMP fix
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I just recollected about one hack which we created > > as we needed to route HW IRQ in domU. > > > > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c > > index 9d793ba..d0227b9 100644 > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_create.c > > @@ -989,8 +989,6 @@ static void domcreate_launch_dm(libxl__egc *egc, > > libxl__multidev *multidev, > > > > LOG(DEBUG, "dom%d irq %d", domid, irq); > > > > - ret = irq >= 0 ? xc_physdev_map_pirq(CTX->xch, domid, irq, &irq) > > - : -EOVERFLOW; > > if (!ret) > > ret = xc_domain_irq_permission(CTX->xch, domid, irq, 1); > > if (ret < 0) { > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c > > index 2e4b11f..b54c08e 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c > > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ int domain_vgic_init(struct domain *d) > > if ( d->domain_id == 0 ) > > d->arch.vgic.nr_lines = gic_number_lines() - 32; > > else > > - d->arch.vgic.nr_lines = 0; /* We don't need SPIs for the guest */ > > + d->arch.vgic.nr_lines = gic_number_lines() - 32; /* We do > > need SPIs for the guest */ > > > > d->arch.vgic.shared_irqs = > > xzalloc_array(struct vgic_irq_rank, DOMAIN_NR_RANKS(d)); > > diff --git a/xen/common/domctl.c b/xen/common/domctl.c > > index 75e2df3..ba88901 100644 > > --- a/xen/common/domctl.c > > +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c > > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ > > #include <asm/page.h> > > #include <public/domctl.h> > > #include <xsm/xsm.h> > > +#include <asm/gic.h> > > > > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(domctl_lock); > > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(vcpu_alloc_lock); > > @@ -782,8 +783,11 @@ long > > do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t) u_domctl) > > ret = -EINVAL; > > else if ( xsm_irq_permission(XSM_HOOK, d, pirq, allow) ) > > ret = -EPERM; > > - else if ( allow ) > > - ret = pirq_permit_access(d, pirq); > > + else if ( allow ) { > > + struct dt_irq irq = {pirq + NR_LOCAL_IRQS,0}; > > + ret = pirq_permit_access(d, irq.irq); > > + gic_route_irq_to_guest(d, &irq, ""); > > + } > > else > > ret = pirq_deny_access(d, pirq); > > } > > (END) > > > > It seems, the following patch can violate the logic about routing > > physical IRQs only to CPU0. > > In gic_route_irq_to_guest() we need to call gic_set_irq_properties() > > where the one of the parameters is cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()). > > But in this part of code this function can be executed on CPU1. And as > > result this can cause to the fact that the wrong value would set to > > target CPU mask. > > > > Please, confirm my assumption. > > That is correct. > > > > If I am right we have to add a basic HW IRQ routing to DomU in a right way. > > We could add the cpumask parameter to gic_route_irq_to_guest. Or maybe > for now we could just hardcode the cpumask of cpu0 > gic_route_irq_to_guest. > > However keep in mind that if you plan on routing SPIs to guests other > than dom0, receiving all the interrupts on cpu0 might not be great for > performances. Thinking twice about it, it might be the only acceptable change for 4.4. diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c index e6257a7..af96a31 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c @@ -776,8 +795,7 @@ int gic_route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, const struct dt_irq *irq, level = dt_irq_is_level_triggered(irq); - gic_set_irq_properties(irq->irq, level, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()), - 0xa0); + gic_set_irq_properties(irq->irq, level, cpumask_of(0), 0xa0); retval = __setup_irq(desc, irq->irq, action); if (retval) { _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |