Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:35:03 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20210315143536.214621-1-qperret@google.com>
Message-Id: <20210315143536.214621-4-qperret@google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20210315143536.214621-1-qperret@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 03/36] arm64: kvm: Add standalone ticket spinlock
 implementation for use at hyp
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org,
        james.morse@arm.com, julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com,
        suzuki.poulose@arm.com
Cc:     android-kvm@google.com, seanjc@google.com, mate.toth-pal@arm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel-team@android.com,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, tabba@google.com, ardb@kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, dbrazdil@google.com, qperret@google.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>

We will soon need to synchronise multiple CPUs in the hyp text at EL2.
The qspinlock-based locking used by the host is overkill for this purpose
and relies on the kernel's "percpu" implementation for the MCS nodes.

Implement a simple ticket locking scheme based heavily on the code removed
by commit c11090474d70 ("arm64: locking: Replace ticket lock implementation
with qspinlock").

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/spinlock.h | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/spinlock.h

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/spinlock.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/spinlock.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..76b537f8d1c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/spinlock.h
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/*
+ * A stand-alone ticket spinlock implementation for use by the non-VHE
+ * KVM hypervisor code running at EL2.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2020 Google LLC
+ * Author: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
+ *
+ * Heavily based on the implementation removed by c11090474d70 which was:
+ * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Ltd.
+ */
+
+#ifndef __ARM64_KVM_NVHE_SPINLOCK_H__
+#define __ARM64_KVM_NVHE_SPINLOCK_H__
+
+#include <asm/alternative.h>
+#include <asm/lse.h>
+
+typedef union hyp_spinlock {
+	u32	__val;
+	struct {
+#ifdef __AARCH64EB__
+		u16 next, owner;
+#else
+		u16 owner, next;
+#endif
+	};
+} hyp_spinlock_t;
+
+#define hyp_spin_lock_init(l)						\
+do {									\
+	*(l) = (hyp_spinlock_t){ .__val = 0 };				\
+} while (0)
+
+static inline void hyp_spin_lock(hyp_spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+	u32 tmp;
+	hyp_spinlock_t lockval, newval;
+
+	asm volatile(
+	/* Atomically increment the next ticket. */
+	ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN(
+	/* LL/SC */
+"	prfm	pstl1strm, %3\n"
+"1:	ldaxr	%w0, %3\n"
+"	add	%w1, %w0, #(1 << 16)\n"
+"	stxr	%w2, %w1, %3\n"
+"	cbnz	%w2, 1b\n",
+	/* LSE atomics */
+"	mov	%w2, #(1 << 16)\n"
+"	ldadda	%w2, %w0, %3\n"
+	__nops(3))
+
+	/* Did we get the lock? */
+"	eor	%w1, %w0, %w0, ror #16\n"
+"	cbz	%w1, 3f\n"
+	/*
+	 * No: spin on the owner. Send a local event to avoid missing an
+	 * unlock before the exclusive load.
+	 */
+"	sevl\n"
+"2:	wfe\n"
+"	ldaxrh	%w2, %4\n"
+"	eor	%w1, %w2, %w0, lsr #16\n"
+"	cbnz	%w1, 2b\n"
+	/* We got the lock. Critical section starts here. */
+"3:"
+	: "=&r" (lockval), "=&r" (newval), "=&r" (tmp), "+Q" (*lock)
+	: "Q" (lock->owner)
+	: "memory");
+}
+
+static inline void hyp_spin_unlock(hyp_spinlock_t *lock)
+{
+	u64 tmp;
+
+	asm volatile(
+	ARM64_LSE_ATOMIC_INSN(
+	/* LL/SC */
+	"	ldrh	%w1, %0\n"
+	"	add	%w1, %w1, #1\n"
+	"	stlrh	%w1, %0",
+	/* LSE atomics */
+	"	mov	%w1, #1\n"
+	"	staddlh	%w1, %0\n"
+	__nops(1))
+	: "=Q" (lock->owner), "=&r" (tmp)
+	:
+	: "memory");
+}
+
+#endif /* __ARM64_KVM_NVHE_SPINLOCK_H__ */
-- 
2.31.0.rc2.261.g7f71774620-goog