Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
virt/kvm/arm/vgic-v2.c between commit 1f2bb4acc125 ("arm/arm64: KVM:
Fix unaligned access bug on gicv2 access") from Linus' tree and commit
2df36a5dd679 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Fix BE accesses to GICv2 EISR and ELRSR
regs") from the kvm-arm tree.
I fixed it up (since I don't know any better, I just used the kvm-arm
tree version) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is
required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
>> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
>> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
>> from the kvm-arm tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
>> (no action is required).
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
>>
>> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
>> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
>> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
>> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
>> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
>> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
>> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>> return true;
>> }
>> }
>> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
>>
>> vlr.irq = irq;
>> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
>> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
>> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
>> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
>> -
>> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>> + vlr.state = 0;
>> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
>>
>> return true;
>> }
>
> Looks great, thanks!
> -Christoffer
Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
a different resolution though:
diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
@@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
}
}
+ static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
+ int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
+ {
+ if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
+ vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
+ kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
+ vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
+ vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
+ } else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
+ vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
+ kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
+ }
+
+ if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
+ vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
+
+ vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
++ vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
+ }
+
/*
* Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
* or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
@@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
- vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
- vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
- vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
+ vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
return true;
}
}
@@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
vlr.irq = irq;
vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
- vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
- if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
- vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
-
- vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
- vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
+ vlr.state = 0;
+ vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
return true;
}
Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
(Stephen, you'll still get the conflicts in linux-next for a
couple of days as I finish local testing of KVM changes for 4.1).
Paolo
On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:20:15 +0100
Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Paolo,
> On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> >> from the kvm-arm tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> >> (no action is required).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
> >>
> >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> >> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> >> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> >> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> >> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
> >>
> >> vlr.irq = irq;
> >> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> >> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> >> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> >> -
> >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + vlr.state = 0;
> >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >>
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >
> > Looks great, thanks!
> > -Christoffer
>
> Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
> a different resolution though:
>
> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
> }
> }
>
> + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
> + int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> + {
> + if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
> + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
> + kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
> + vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
> + } else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
> + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> + kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + }
> +
> + if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> + vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> +
> + vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> ++ vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> + }
> +
> /*
> * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
> * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
> @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> return true;
> }
> }
> @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
>
> vlr.irq = irq;
> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> -
> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> + vlr.state = 0;
> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>
> return true;
> }
>
>
> Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
> can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
This looks like a sensible resolution to me. I've given it a spin, and
it seems to behave as expected.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:15:13AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 17:20:15 +0100
> Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> > On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> > >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> > >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> > >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> > >> from the kvm-arm tree.
> > >>
> > >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> > >> (no action is required).
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
> > >>
> > >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> > >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> > >> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> > >> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> > >> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> > >> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> return true;
> > >> }
> > >> }
> > >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
> > >>
> > >> vlr.irq = irq;
> > >> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> > >> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > >> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > >> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > >> -
> > >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vlr.state = 0;
> > >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > >>
> > >> return true;
> > >> }
> > >
> > > Looks great, thanks!
> > > -Christoffer
> >
> > Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
> > a different resolution though:
> >
> > diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
> > + int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> > + {
> > + if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
> > + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
> > + kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> > + vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
> > + vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
> > + } else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
> > + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > + kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > + vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > +
> > + vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> > ++ vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> > + }
> > +
> > /*
> > * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
> > * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
> > @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> > if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> > kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> > BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> > - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> > return true;
> > }
> > }
> > @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
> >
> > vlr.irq = irq;
> > vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> > - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> > - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> > - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> > -
> > - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> > + vlr.state = 0;
> > + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >
> > return true;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
> > can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
>
> This looks like a sensible resolution to me. I've given it a spin, and
> it seems to behave as expected.
>
Yes, this is semantically slightly nicer in fact.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
Hi Paolo and Marc,
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 06:20:15PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 18/03/2015 08:55, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:41:11PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in
> >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c between commit ae705930fca6 ("arm/arm64: KVM: Keep
> >> elrsr/aisr in sync with software model") from Linus' tree and commit
> >> 71760950bf3d ("arm/arm64: KVM: add a common vgic_queue_irq_to_lr fn")
> >> from the kvm-arm tree.
> >>
> >> I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
> >> (no action is required).
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
> >>
> >> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> index c9f60f524588,ffd937ca5141..000000000000
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> >> @@@ -982,9 -1092,7 +1098,8 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> >> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> >> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> >> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> >> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> @@@ -1001,12 -1109,8 +1116,9 @@@
> >>
> >> vlr.irq = irq;
> >> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> >> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> >> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> >> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> >> -
> >> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >> + vlr.state = 0;
> >> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> >> + vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> >>
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >
> > Looks great, thanks!
> > -Christoffer
>
> Got the same conflict when pulling from the kvm-arm tree, I used
> a different resolution though:
>
> diff --cc virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index c9f60f524588,b70174e74868..8d550ff14700
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@@ -955,6 -1095,25 +1101,26 @@@ static void vgic_retire_disabled_irqs(s
> }
> }
>
> + static void vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq,
> + int lr_nr, struct vgic_lr vlr)
> + {
> + if (vgic_irq_is_active(vcpu, irq)) {
> + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_ACTIVE;
> + kvm_debug("Set active, clear distributor: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + vgic_irq_clear_active(vcpu, irq);
> + vgic_update_state(vcpu->kvm);
> + } else if (vgic_dist_irq_is_pending(vcpu, irq)) {
> + vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> + kvm_debug("Set pending: 0x%x\n", vlr.state);
> + }
> +
> + if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> + vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> +
> + vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> ++ vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr_nr, vlr);
> + }
> +
> /*
> * Queue an interrupt to a CPU virtual interface. Return true on success,
> * or false if it wasn't possible to queue it.
> @@@ -982,9 -1141,7 +1148,7 @@@ bool vgic_queue_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vc
> if (vlr.source == sgi_source_id) {
> kvm_debug("LR%d piggyback for IRQ%d\n", lr, vlr.irq);
> BUG_ON(!test_bit(lr, vgic_cpu->lr_used));
> - vlr.state |= LR_STATE_PENDING;
> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
> return true;
> }
> }
> @@@ -1001,12 -1158,8 +1165,8 @@@
>
> vlr.irq = irq;
> vlr.source = sgi_source_id;
> - vlr.state = LR_STATE_PENDING;
> - if (!vgic_irq_is_edge(vcpu, irq))
> - vlr.state |= LR_EOI_INT;
> -
> - vgic_set_lr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> - vgic_sync_lr_elrsr(vcpu, lr, vlr);
> + vlr.state = 0;
> + vgic_queue_irq_to_lr(vcpu, irq, lr, vlr);
>
> return true;
> }
>
>
> Christoffer, this is the same logic as Stephen's resolution, but
> can you confirm that it makes sense "semantically" as well?
>
> (Stephen, you'll still get the conflicts in linux-next for a
> couple of days as I finish local testing of KVM changes for 4.1).
>
As it turns out, it was not the same logic as Stephen's resolution.
Stephen's resolution is bussy, because vlr is passed by value to
vgic_queue_irq_to_lr() and therefore the call to sync the elrsr does not
have any effect.
Unfortunately, it seems Paolo's more correct fix did not end up in
Linus' tree, so I guess I should just send a patch?
-Christoffer
On 16/04/2015 21:10, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> >
> As it turns out, it was not the same logic as Stephen's resolution.
> Stephen's resolution is bussy, because vlr is passed by value to
> vgic_queue_irq_to_lr() and therefore the call to sync the elrsr does not
> have any effect.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems Paolo's more correct fix did not end up in
> Linus' tree, so I guess I should just send a patch?
Uhm, sure it did :)
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c#n1121
Stephen's resolutions never end up in Linus's tree, as Stephen never
sends anything to Linus.
Paolo
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:39:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 16/04/2015 21:10, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> >
> > As it turns out, it was not the same logic as Stephen's resolution.
> > Stephen's resolution is bussy, because vlr is passed by value to
> > vgic_queue_irq_to_lr() and therefore the call to sync the elrsr does not
> > have any effect.
> >
> > Unfortunately, it seems Paolo's more correct fix did not end up in
> > Linus' tree, so I guess I should just send a patch?
>
> Uhm, sure it did :)
>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c#n1121
>
I'm an idiot; I looked at 4.0 instead of master, sorry for the noise.
-Christoffer