[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH 1/2] xen/arm: Improve handling of nr_spis
On 11/03/2025 11:12, Bertrand Marquis wrote: > > >> On 11 Mar 2025, at 10:59, Orzel, Michal <Michal.Orzel@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/03/2025 10:30, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>>> On 11 Mar 2025, at 10:04, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> At the moment, we print a warning about max number of IRQs supported by >>>> GIC bigger than vGIC only for hardware domain. This check is not hwdom >>>> special, and should be made common. Also, in case of user not specifying >>>> nr_spis for dom0less domUs, we should take into account max number of >>>> IRQs supported by vGIC if it's smaller than for GIC. >>>> >>>> Introduce VGIC_MAX_IRQS macro and use it instead of hardcoded 992 value. >>>> Fix calculation of nr_spis for dom0less domUs and make the GIC/vGIC max >>>> IRQs comparison common. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c | 2 +- >>>> xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 9 ++------- >>>> xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 3 +++ >>>> xen/arch/arm/include/asm/vgic.h | 3 +++ >>>> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c >>>> index 31f31c38da3f..9a84fee94119 100644 >>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c >>>> @@ -1018,7 +1018,7 @@ void __init create_domUs(void) >>>> { >>>> int vpl011_virq = GUEST_VPL011_SPI; >>>> >>>> - d_cfg.arch.nr_spis = gic_number_lines() - 32; >>>> + d_cfg.arch.nr_spis = min(gic_number_lines(), VGIC_MAX_IRQS) - >>>> 32; >>> >>> I would suggest to introduce a static inline gic_nr_spis in a gic header ... >> Why GIC and not vGIC? This is domain's nr_spis, so vGIC. > > yes vGIC sorry. > >> But then, why static inline if the value does not change and is domain >> agnostic? >> I struggle to find a good name for this macro. Maybe (in vgic.h): >> #define vgic_def_nr_spis (min(gic_number_lines(), VGIC_MAX_IRQS) - 32) >> to denote default nr_spis if not set by the user? > > Yes that would work. My point is to prevent to have 2 definitions in 2 > different > source file and a risk to forget to update one and not the other (let say if > some > day we change 32 in 64). > >> >>> >>>> >>>> /* >>>> * The VPL011 virq is GUEST_VPL011_SPI, unless direct-map is >>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c >>>> index 7cc141ef75e9..b99c4e3a69bf 100644 >>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c >>>> @@ -2371,13 +2371,8 @@ void __init create_dom0(void) >>>> >>>> /* The vGIC for DOM0 is exactly emulating the hardware GIC */ >>>> dom0_cfg.arch.gic_version = XEN_DOMCTL_CONFIG_GIC_NATIVE; >>>> - /* >>>> - * Xen vGIC supports a maximum of 992 interrupt lines. >>>> - * 32 are substracted to cover local IRQs. >>>> - */ >>>> - dom0_cfg.arch.nr_spis = min(gic_number_lines(), (unsigned int) 992) - >>>> 32; >>>> - if ( gic_number_lines() > 992 ) >>>> - printk(XENLOG_WARNING "Maximum number of vGIC IRQs exceeded.\n"); >>>> + /* 32 are substracted to cover local IRQs */ >>>> + dom0_cfg.arch.nr_spis = min(gic_number_lines(), VGIC_MAX_IRQS) - 32; >>> >>> and reuse it here to make sure the value used is always the same. >>> >>>> dom0_cfg.arch.tee_type = tee_get_type(); >>>> dom0_cfg.max_vcpus = dom0_max_vcpus(); >>>> >>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c >>>> index acf61a4de373..e80fe0ca2421 100644 >>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c >>>> @@ -251,6 +251,9 @@ void __init gic_init(void) >>>> panic("Failed to initialize the GIC drivers\n"); >>>> /* Clear LR mask for cpu0 */ >>>> clear_cpu_lr_mask(); >>>> + >>>> + if ( gic_number_lines() > VGIC_MAX_IRQS ) >>>> + printk(XENLOG_WARNING "Maximum number of vGIC IRQs exceeded\n"); >>> >>> I am a bit unsure with this one. >>> If this is the case, it means any gicv2 or gicv3 init detected an >>> impossible value and >>> any usage of gic_number_lines would be using an impossible value. >> Why impossible? GIC can support up to 1020 IRQs. Our vGIC can support up to >> 992 >> IRQs. > > Maybe unsupported is a better wording, my point is that it could lead to non > working system > if say something uses irq 1000. Actually, I took a look at the code and I don't think we should panic (i.e. we should keep things as they are today). In your example, if something uses IRQ > VGIC_MAX_IRQS that is bigger than gic_number_lines(), then we will receive error when mapping this IRQ to guest (but you don't have to use such device and in the future we may enable IRQ re-mapping). That's why in all the places related to domains, we use vgic_num_irqs() and not gic_number_lines(). The latter is only used for IRQs routed to Xen. ~Michal
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |