[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 11/28] ARM: GICv3: forward pending LPIs to guests



Hi Jan,

On 03/03/17 07:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 02.03.17 at 21:56, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Ping? I'd like the question to be sorted out before Andre is sending a
new version.

On 02/15/2017 09:25 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Stefano,

On 14/02/17 21:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Andre Przywara wrote:
+/*
+ * Handle incoming LPIs, which are a bit special, because they are
potentially
+ * numerous and also only get injected into guests. Treat them specially
here,
+ * by just looking up their target vCPU and virtual LPI number and hand
it
+ * over to the injection function.
+ */
+void do_LPI(unsigned int lpi)
+{
+    struct domain *d;
+    union host_lpi *hlpip, hlpi;
+    struct vcpu *vcpu;
+
+    WRITE_SYSREG32(lpi, ICC_EOIR1_EL1);
+
+    hlpip = gic_get_host_lpi(lpi);
+    if ( !hlpip )
+        return;
+
+    hlpi.data = read_u64_atomic(&hlpip->data);
+
+    /* We may have mapped more host LPIs than the guest actually asked
for. */
+    if ( !hlpi.virt_lpi )
+        return;
+
+    d = get_domain_by_id(hlpi.dom_id);
+    if ( !d )
+        return;
+
+    if ( hlpi.vcpu_id >= d->max_vcpus )
+    {
+        put_domain(d);
+        return;
+    }
+
+    vcpu = d->vcpu[hlpi.vcpu_id];
+
+    put_domain(d);
+
+    vgic_vcpu_inject_irq(vcpu, hlpi.virt_lpi);

put_domain should be here

Why? I don't even understand why we would need to take a reference on the
domain for LPIs. Would not it be enough to use rcu_lock_domain_by_id here?

I think that rcu_lock_domain_by_id would also work, but similarly we
would need to call rcu_unlock here.

To be honest, I don't know exactly in which cases get_domain should be
used instead of rcu_lock_domain_by_id.

Aiui get_domain() is needed when you want to retain the reference
across an operation that may involved blocking/scheduling. The RCU
variant should be sufficient whenever you only need to make sure
the domain won't go away for the duration of (a portion of) a
function, since final domain destruction gets carried out from an
RCU callback.

Thank you for explanation. I think it makes sense. There will be no scheduling or softirq_pending involves in do_LPI so using rcu_lock_domain_by_id seems more suitable here.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.