[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,
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.
CC'ing the x86 guys that might know the answer.
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
