Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 02/16] xen/arm: make mmio handlers domain specific

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Vijay,

On 26/05/14 11:26, vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>   int handle_mmio(mmio_info_t *info)
>   {
>       struct vcpu *v = current;
>       int i;
> +    struct mmio_handler *mmio_handler;
> +    struct io_handler *io_handlers = &v->domain->arch.io_handlers;
NIT: I think mmio_handler and io_handlers can be const.

> +
> +void register_mmio_handler(struct domain *d,
> +                           const struct mmio_handler_ops *handle,
> +                           paddr_t addr, paddr_t size)
> +{
> +    struct io_handler *handler = &d->arch.io_handlers;
> +
> +    BUG_ON(handler->num_entries >= MAX_IO_HANDLER);
> +
> +    spin_lock(&handler->lock);
> +
> +    handler->mmio_handlers[handler->num_entries].mmio_handler_ops = handle;
> +    handler->mmio_handlers[handler->num_entries].addr = addr;
> +    handler->mmio_handlers[handler->num_entries].size = size;
> +    handler->num_entries++;
> +    dsb(sy);
This is wrong. As I said on the previous version, the dsb needs to be 
called before incrementing the num_entries.
This is because as you don't use spinlock in handle_mmio, you have to 
make sure the array modification has reached the memory before update 
num_entries.
At the same time dsb(is) is enough.

> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c
> index 4962e70..151ec3e 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vgic.c
> @@ -73,43 +73,6 @@ static struct vgic_irq_rank *vgic_irq_rank(struct vcpu *v, 
> int b, int n)
>           return NULL;
>   }
>
> -int domain_vgic_init(struct domain *d)
> -{
> -    int i;
> -
> -    d->arch.vgic.ctlr = 0;
> -
> -    /* Currently nr_lines in vgic and gic doesn't have the same meanings
> -     * Here nr_lines = number of SPIs
> -     */
> -    if ( is_hardware_domain(d) )
> -        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.shared_irqs =
> -        xzalloc_array(struct vgic_irq_rank, DOMAIN_NR_RANKS(d));
> -    if ( d->arch.vgic.shared_irqs == NULL )
> -        return -ENOMEM;
> -
> -    d->arch.vgic.pending_irqs =
> -        xzalloc_array(struct pending_irq, d->arch.vgic.nr_lines);
> -    if ( d->arch.vgic.pending_irqs == NULL )
> -    {
> -        xfree(d->arch.vgic.shared_irqs);
> -        return -ENOMEM;
> -    }
> -
> -    for (i=0; i<d->arch.vgic.nr_lines; i++)
> -    {
> -        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&d->arch.vgic.pending_irqs[i].inflight);
> -        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&d->arch.vgic.pending_irqs[i].lr_queue);
> -    }
> -    for (i=0; i<DOMAIN_NR_RANKS(d); i++)
> -        spin_lock_init(&d->arch.vgic.shared_irqs[i].lock);
> -    return 0;
> -}
> -
Rather than moving a whole chunk of code, why can't you add forward 
declaration for vgic_disk_mmio_{read,write}?
>   void domain_vgic_free(struct domain *d)
>   {
>       xfree(d->arch.vgic.shared_irqs);
> @@ -676,15 +639,7 @@ write_ignore:
>       return 1;
>   }
>
> -static int vgic_distr_mmio_check(struct vcpu *v, paddr_t addr)
> -{
> -    struct domain *d = v->domain;
> -
> -    return (addr >= (d->arch.vgic.dbase)) && (addr < (d->arch.vgic.dbase + 
> PAGE_SIZE));
> -}
> -
> -const struct mmio_handler vgic_distr_mmio_handler = {
> -    .check_handler = vgic_distr_mmio_check,
> +const struct mmio_handler_ops vgic_distr_mmio_handler = {
>       .read_handler  = vgic_distr_mmio_read,
>       .write_handler = vgic_distr_mmio_write,
>   };
> @@ -766,6 +721,38 @@ out:
>           smp_send_event_check_mask(cpumask_of(v->processor));
>   }
>
> +int domain_vgic_init(struct domain *d)
> +{
> +    int i;
> +
> +    d->arch.vgic.ctlr = 0;
> +
> +    /* Currently nr_lines in vgic and gic doesn't have the same meanings
> +     * Here nr_lines = number of SPIs
> +     */
> +    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.shared_irqs =
> +        xzalloc_array(struct vgic_irq_rank, DOMAIN_NR_RANKS(d));
> +    d->arch.vgic.pending_irqs =
> +        xzalloc_array(struct pending_irq, d->arch.vgic.nr_lines);
> +    for (i=0; i<d->arch.vgic.nr_lines; i++)
> +    {
> +        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&d->arch.vgic.pending_irqs[i].inflight);
> +        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&d->arch.vgic.pending_irqs[i].lr_queue);
> +    }
> +    for (i=0; i<DOMAIN_NR_RANKS(d); i++)
> +        spin_lock_init(&d->arch.vgic.shared_irqs[i].lock);
> +
> +    register_mmio_handler(d, &vgic_distr_mmio_handler,
> +                          d->arch.vgic.dbase, PAGE_SIZE);
> +
Sounds like a bit strange to call register_mmio_handler here and let 
gicv_setup set dbase. Can you add a comment saying to smth like "We rely 
on gicv_setup to initialize dbase"?
> +    return 0;
> +}
> +
>   /*
>    * Local variables:
>    * mode: C
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vuart.c b/xen/arch/arm/vuart.c
> index 953cd46..52f3259 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/vuart.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vuart.c
> @@ -44,24 +44,6 @@
>
>   #define domain_has_vuart(d) ((d)->arch.vuart.info != NULL)
>
> -int domain_vuart_init(struct domain *d)
> -{
> -    ASSERT( is_hardware_domain(d) );
> -
> -    d->arch.vuart.info = serial_vuart_info(SERHND_DTUART);
> -    if ( !d->arch.vuart.info )
> -        return 0;
> -
> -    spin_lock_init(&d->arch.vuart.lock);
> -    d->arch.vuart.idx = 0;
> -
> -    d->arch.vuart.buf = xzalloc_array(char, VUART_BUF_SIZE);
> -    if ( !d->arch.vuart.buf )
> -        return -ENOMEM;
> -
> -    return 0;
> -}
> -
Same remark here about forward declaration.

Regards,

--
Julien Grall

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