[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] [not-for-unstable] xen/arm: vgic-v3: Delay the initialization of the domain information


  • To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 10:53:35 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFLhNn8BEADVhE+Hb8i0GV6mihnnr/uiQQdPF8kUoFzCOPXkf7jQ5sLYeJa0cQi6Penp VtiFYznTairnVsN5J+ujSTIb+OlMSJUWV4opS7WVNnxHbFTPYZVQ3erv7NKc2iVizCRZ2Kxn srM1oPXWRic8BIAdYOKOloF2300SL/bIpeD+x7h3w9B/qez7nOin5NzkxgFoaUeIal12pXSR Q354FKFoy6Vh96gc4VRqte3jw8mPuJQpfws+Pb+swvSf/i1q1+1I4jsRQQh2m6OTADHIqg2E ofTYAEh7R5HfPx0EXoEDMdRjOeKn8+vvkAwhviWXTHlG3R1QkbE5M/oywnZ83udJmi+lxjJ5 YhQ5IzomvJ16H0Bq+TLyVLO/VRksp1VR9HxCzItLNCS8PdpYYz5TC204ViycobYU65WMpzWe LFAGn8jSS25XIpqv0Y9k87dLbctKKA14Ifw2kq5OIVu2FuX+3i446JOa2vpCI9GcjCzi3oHV e00bzYiHMIl0FICrNJU0Kjho8pdo0m2uxkn6SYEpogAy9pnatUlO+erL4LqFUO7GXSdBRbw5 gNt25XTLdSFuZtMxkY3tq8MFss5QnjhehCVPEpE6y9ZjI4XB8ad1G4oBHVGK5LMsvg22PfMJ ISWFSHoF/B5+lHkCKWkFxZ0gZn33ju5n6/FOdEx4B8cMJt+cWwARAQABzSlBbmRyZXcgQ29v cGVyIDxhbmRyZXcuY29vcGVyM0BjaXRyaXguY29tPsLBegQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkI CwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCWKD95wIZAQAKCRBlw/kGpdefoHbdD/9AIoR3k6fKl+RFiFpyAhvO 59ttDFI7nIAnlYngev2XUR3acFElJATHSDO0ju+hqWqAb8kVijXLops0gOfqt3VPZq9cuHlh IMDquatGLzAadfFx2eQYIYT+FYuMoPZy/aTUazmJIDVxP7L383grjIkn+7tAv+qeDfE+txL4 SAm1UHNvmdfgL2/lcmL3xRh7sub3nJilM93RWX1Pe5LBSDXO45uzCGEdst6uSlzYR/MEr+5Z JQQ32JV64zwvf/aKaagSQSQMYNX9JFgfZ3TKWC1KJQbX5ssoX/5hNLqxMcZV3TN7kU8I3kjK mPec9+1nECOjjJSO/h4P0sBZyIUGfguwzhEeGf4sMCuSEM4xjCnwiBwftR17sr0spYcOpqET ZGcAmyYcNjy6CYadNCnfR40vhhWuCfNCBzWnUW0lFoo12wb0YnzoOLjvfD6OL3JjIUJNOmJy RCsJ5IA/Iz33RhSVRmROu+TztwuThClw63g7+hoyewv7BemKyuU6FTVhjjW+XUWmS/FzknSi dAG+insr0746cTPpSkGl3KAXeWDGJzve7/SBBfyznWCMGaf8E2P1oOdIZRxHgWj0zNr1+ooF /PzgLPiCI4OMUttTlEKChgbUTQ+5o0P080JojqfXwbPAyumbaYcQNiH1/xYbJdOFSiBv9rpt TQTBLzDKXok86M7BTQRS4TZ/ARAAkgqudHsp+hd82UVkvgnlqZjzz2vyrYfz7bkPtXaGb9H4 Rfo7mQsEQavEBdWWjbga6eMnDqtu+FC+qeTGYebToxEyp2lKDSoAsvt8w82tIlP/EbmRbDVn 7bhjBlfRcFjVYw8uVDPptT0TV47vpoCVkTwcyb6OltJrvg/QzV9f07DJswuda1JH3/qvYu0p vjPnYvCq4NsqY2XSdAJ02HrdYPFtNyPEntu1n1KK+gJrstjtw7KsZ4ygXYrsm/oCBiVW/OgU g/XIlGErkrxe4vQvJyVwg6YH653YTX5hLLUEL1NS4TCo47RP+wi6y+TnuAL36UtK/uFyEuPy wwrDVcC4cIFhYSfsO0BumEI65yu7a8aHbGfq2lW251UcoU48Z27ZUUZd2Dr6O/n8poQHbaTd 6bJJSjzGGHZVbRP9UQ3lkmkmc0+XCHmj5WhwNNYjgbbmML7y0fsJT5RgvefAIFfHBg7fTY/i kBEimoUsTEQz+N4hbKwo1hULfVxDJStE4sbPhjbsPCrlXf6W9CxSyQ0qmZ2bXsLQYRj2xqd1 bpA+1o1j2N4/au1R/uSiUFjewJdT/LX1EklKDcQwpk06Af/N7VZtSfEJeRV04unbsKVXWZAk uAJyDDKN99ziC0Wz5kcPyVD1HNf8bgaqGDzrv3TfYjwqayRFcMf7xJaL9xXedMcAEQEAAcLB XwQYAQgACQUCUuE2fwIbDAAKCRBlw/kGpdefoG4XEACD1Qf/er8EA7g23HMxYWd3FXHThrVQ HgiGdk5Yh632vjOm9L4sd/GCEACVQKjsu98e8o3ysitFlznEns5EAAXEbITrgKWXDDUWGYxd pnjj2u+GkVdsOAGk0kxczX6s+VRBhpbBI2PWnOsRJgU2n10PZ3mZD4Xu9kU2IXYmuW+e5KCA vTArRUdCrAtIa1k01sPipPPw6dfxx2e5asy21YOytzxuWFfJTGnVxZZSCyLUO83sh6OZhJkk b9rxL9wPmpN/t2IPaEKoAc0FTQZS36wAMOXkBh24PQ9gaLJvfPKpNzGD8XWR5HHF0NLIJhgg 4ZlEXQ2fVp3XrtocHqhu4UZR4koCijgB8sB7Tb0GCpwK+C4UePdFLfhKyRdSXuvY3AHJd4CP 4JzW0Bzq/WXY3XMOzUTYApGQpnUpdOmuQSfpV9MQO+/jo7r6yPbxT7CwRS5dcQPzUiuHLK9i nvjREdh84qycnx0/6dDroYhp0DFv4udxuAvt1h4wGwTPRQZerSm4xaYegEFusyhbZrI0U9tJ B8WrhBLXDiYlyJT6zOV2yZFuW47VrLsjYnHwn27hmxTC/7tvG3euCklmkn9Sl9IAKFu29RSo d5bD8kMSCYsTqtTfT6W4A3qHGvIDta3ptLYpIAOD2sY3GYq2nf3Bbzx81wZK14JdDDHUX2Rs 6+ahAA==
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@xxxxxxxxxx, andre.przywara@xxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 09:53:48 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 01/10/18 10:43, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/29/2018 12:48 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 29/09/18 00:45, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> On 28/09/18 21:35, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/28/2018 12:11 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/25/2018 09:45 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/09/18 20:35, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/04/2018 08:21 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> A follow-up patch will require to know the number of vCPUs when
>>>>>>>>>>> initializating the vGICv3 domain structure. However this
>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> not available at domain creation. This is only known once
>>>>>>>>>>> XEN_DOMCTL_max_vpus is called for that domain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In order to get the max vCPUs around, delay the domain part
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> vGIC
>>>>>>>>>>> v3 initialization until the first vCPU of the domain is
>>>>>>>>>>> initialized.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is nasty but I can't find a better way for Xen 4.11 and
>>>>>>>>>>> older.
>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>> is not necessary for unstable as the number of vCPUs is
>>>>>>>>>>> known at
>>>>>>>>>>> domain
>>>>>>>>>>> creation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew, I have CCed you to know whether you have a better idea
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> place this call on Xen 4.11 and older.
>>>>>>>>>> I just noticed that d->max_vcpus is initialized after
>>>>>>>>>> arch_domain_create. So without this patch on Xen 4.12, it will
>>>>>>>>>> not work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is getting nastier because arch_domain_init is the one
>>>>>>>>>> initialize
>>>>>>>>>> the value returned by dom0_max_vcpus. So I am not entirely
>>>>>>>>>> sure what
>>>>>>>>>> to do here.
>>>>>>>>> The positioning after arch_domain_create() is unfortunate, but I
>>>>>>>>> couldn’t manage better with ARM's current behaviour and Jan's
>>>>>>>>> insistence
>>>>>>>>> that the allocation of d->vcpu was common.  I'd prefer if the
>>>>>>>>> dependency
>>>>>>>>> could be broken and the allocation moved earlier.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One option might be to have an arch_check_domainconfig() (or
>>>>>>>>> similar?)
>>>>>>>>> which is called very early on and can sanity check the values,
>>>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>>>> cross-checking the vgic and max_vcpus settings?  It could even be
>>>>>>>>> responsible for mutating XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_GIC_NATIVE into the
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> real value.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for your patch here, its a gross hack, but its probably the
>>>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>>>> which can be done.
>>>>>>>> *Sighs*
>>>>>>>> If that is what we have to do, it is as ugly as hell, but that
>>>>>>>> is what
>>>>>>>> we'll do.
>>>>>>> This is the best we can do with the current code base. I think it
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> worth reworking the code to make it nicer. I will add it in my TODO
>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My only suggestion to marginally improve it would be instead of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +    if ( v->vcpu_id == 0 )
>>>>>>>>> +    {
>>>>>>>>> +        rc = vgic_v3_real_domain_init(d);
>>>>>>>>> +        if ( rc )
>>>>>>>>> +            return rc;
>>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>> to check on d->arch.vgic.rdist_regions instead:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>          if ( d->arch.vgic.rdist_regions == NULL )
>>>>>>>>          {
>>>>>>>>             // initialize domain
>>>>>>> I would prefer to keep v->vcpu_id == 0 just in case we end up to
>>>>>>> re-order the
>>>>>>> allocation in the future.
>>>>>> I was suggesting to check on (rdist_regions == NULL) exactly for
>>>>>> potential re-ordering, in case in the future we end up calling
>>>>>> vcpu_vgic_init differently and somehow vcpu_init(vcpu1) is done
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> before vcpu_init(vcpu0). Ideally we would like a way to check that
>>>>>> vgic_v3_real_domain_init has been called before and I thought
>>>>>> rdist_regions == NULL could do just that...
>>>>> What I meant by re-ordering is we manage to allocate the
>>>>> re-distributors before the vCPUs are created but still need
>>>>> vgic_v3_real_domain_init for other purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> But vCPU initialization is potentially other issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway. both way have drawbacks. Yet I still prefer checking on the
>>>>> vCPU. It less likely vCPU0 will not be the first one initialized.
>>>> With the exception of the idle domain, all vcpus are strictly
>>>> allocated
>>>> in packed ascending order.  Loads of other stuff will break if that
>>>> changed, so I wouldn't worry about it.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, there is no obvious reason for this behaviour to ever
>>>> change.
>>> OK, let's go with Julien's patch. We need a new tag for this, something
>>> like:
>>>
>>> Acked-but-disliked-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Do bear in mind that this patch is only for 4.11 and earlier.  I've
>> already fixed staging (i.e. 4.12) when it comes to knowing
>> d->max_vcpus :)
> I thought we agreed that patch is necessary for 4.12 as d->max_vcpus
> is initialized after arch_domain_init?

Oh right.

> I am not planning to do the rework in short term. Did you do more work
> on around domain_create recently?

There are multiple related patch series out on xen-devel atm, but I
expect I need to spin a new version of each of them.  I'll see if I have
some time to put towards it.  Are you happy in principle with the
arch_check_domainconfig() plan?

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.