Thread (73 messages) 73 messages, 6 authors, 2026-01-07

Re: [PATCH 16/32] KVM: arm64: gic: Introduce irq_queue and set_pending_state to irq_ops

From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Date: 2025-12-17 09:34:55
Also in: kvm, kvmarm

On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:22:40 +0000,
Sascha Bischoff [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
There are times when the default behaviour of vgic_queue_irq_unlock is
undesirable. This is because some GICs, such a GICv5 which is the main
driver for this change, handle the majority of the interrupt lifecycle
in hardware. In this case, there is no need for a per-VCPU AP list as
the interrupt can be made pending directly. This is done either via
the ICH_PPI_x_EL2 registers for PPIs, or with the VDPEND system
instruction for SPIs and LPIs.

The queue_irq_unlock function is made overridable using a new function
pointer in struct irq_ops. In kvm_vgic_inject_irq,
vgic_queue_irq_unlock is overridden if the function pointer is
non-null.

Additionally, a new function is added via a function pointer -
set_pending_state. The intent is for this to be used to directly set
the pending state in hardware.

Both of these new irq_ops are unused in this change - it is purely
providing the infrastructure itself. The subsequent PPI injection
changes provide a demonstration of their usage.

Signed-off-by: Sascha Bischoff <redacted>
---
 arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c |  9 ++++++++-
 include/kvm/arm_vgic.h     | 15 +++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
index 1fe3dcc997860..fc01c6d07fe62 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
@@ -547,7 +547,14 @@ int kvm_vgic_inject_irq(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 	else
 		irq->pending_latch = true;
 
-	vgic_queue_irq_unlock(kvm, irq, flags);
+	if (irq->ops && irq->ops->set_pending_state)
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq->ops->set_pending_state(vcpu, irq));
+
+	if (irq->ops && irq->ops->queue_irq_unlock)
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(!irq->ops->queue_irq_unlock(kvm, irq, flags));
+	else
+		vgic_queue_irq_unlock(kvm, irq, flags);
I find it slightly dubious to WARN() in one case but not the other.

More importantly, why isn't the per-irq queue_unlock operation tucked
into the vgic_queue_irq_unlock() primitive? We have 16 call sites for
this function, and it is odd that only the injection primitive would
benefit from this.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help