From: Zenghui Yu <zenghui.yu@linux.dev>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Don't load pending state when enabling LPIs on RD
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 23:27:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c08a1a77-1058-8586-2607-026de86fd67e@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86le6u178m.wl-maz@kernel.org>
On 2024/3/7 21:50, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 12:13:43 +0000,
> Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 2024/3/7 18:09, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi Zenghui,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 09:00:42 +0000,
>>> Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I've tested it with kvm-unit-tests and got failure with the
>>>> its-pending-migration case:
>>>>
>>>> INFO: gicv3: its-pending-migration: Migration complete
>>>> INFO: gicv3: its-pending-migration: expected 128 LPIs on PE #30, 0 observed
>>>> FAIL: gicv3: its-pending-migration: 128 LPIs on both PE0 and PE1 after
>>>> migration
>>>> SUMMARY: 1 tests, 1 unexpected failures
>>>>
>>>> where the guest SW directly writes to the pending table when
>>>> GICR_CTLR.EnableLPIs == 0. I seriously doubt there is any use case like
>>>> that in real world. But not sure whether it is a funky behaviour from
>>>> the architectural perspective.
>>>
>>> Right, so this is *exactly* the thing I was worried about. A mapping
>>> has been established, the interrupt wasn't pending, all good. Now, an
>>> interrupt lands while GICR_CTLR.EnableLPIs == 0.
>>>
>>> The spec says (4.7.3 "Effect of disabling interrupts")
>>>
>>> "When GICR_CTLR.EnableLPIs == 0, LPIs are never set pending."
>>>
>>> which to me is a pretty damning indication that we shouldn't take
>>> these bits into account.
>>
>> Ah, thanks for pointing it out! And I believe this is the rationale of
>> Oliver's patch.
>>
>> What confused me is that the spec also says (5.1.2 "LPI Pending tables")
>>
>> | "For physical LPIs, when GICR_CTLR.EnableLPIs is changed to 1, the
>> | Redistributor must read the pending status of the physical LPIs from
>> | the physical LPI Pending table."
>>
>> which implicitly indicates that the pending table can contain some
>> pending bits (=1) when EnableLPIs == 0, which would be loaded by RD and
>> make the relevant LPIs pending when EnableLPIs is written from 0 to 1.
>>
>> I have no idea how to interpret these rules ;-) .
>
> Yeah, even after all this time, the GICv3 spec never fails to
> entertain. My take on this is that it is there to support the
> different ways to build a GICv3:
>
> - either RDs are completely independent of the ITSs, and only deal
> with the forwarding of enabled interrupts. In this case, setting
> EnableLPIs to 1 would naturally lead to interrupt being forwarded to
> the CPU. New bits are not allowed to be made pending while it is set
> to 0 though, which matches 4.7.3.
>
> - or RDs and ITSs are pretty monolithic, and the GIC infrastructure as
> a whole maintain the pending state as a result of a translation, not
> as a set of bits in the pending tables. In this case, EnableLPIs
> gates the translation process and there are no new pending bits
> being produced when it is set to 0. We can easily satisfy 5.1.2 by
> not having created new pending bits.
>
> So the two rules are more or less correct. They just are saying that
> it is IMPDEF what happens in this case, which is pretty damming for an
> interrupt controller architecture. I feel dirty just having to think
> of these things!
Me too.. Hey, thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Zenghui
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-10 15:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-28 0:01 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Don't load pending state when enabling LPIs on RD Oliver Upton
2024-03-07 9:00 ` Zenghui Yu
2024-03-07 10:09 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-03-07 12:13 ` Zenghui Yu
2024-03-07 12:33 ` Zenghui Yu
2024-03-07 13:50 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-03-10 15:27 ` Zenghui Yu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c08a1a77-1058-8586-2607-026de86fd67e@linux.dev \
--to=zenghui.yu@linux.dev \
--cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).