lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: arm64: Document PV-lock interface
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 01:55:45PM +0000, yezengruan@huawei.com wrote:
> From: Zengruan Ye <yezengruan@huawei.com>
>
> Introduce a paravirtualization interface for KVM/arm64 to obtain the vcpu
> is currently running or not.
>
> A hypercall interface is provided for the guest to interrogate the
> hypervisor's support for this interface and the location of the shared
> memory structures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zengruan Ye <yezengruan@huawei.com>
> ---
> Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvlock.rst | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvlock.rst
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvlock.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvlock.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..eec0c36edf17
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/pvlock.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +Paravirtualized lock support for arm64
> +======================================
> +
> +KVM/arm64 provids some hypervisor service calls to support a paravirtualized
> +guest obtaining the vcpu is currently running or not.
> +
> +Two new SMCCC compatible hypercalls are defined:
> +
> +* PV_LOCK_FEATURES: 0xC5000040
> +* PV_LOCK_PREEMPTED: 0xC5000041
These values are in the "Standard Hypervisor Service Calls" section of
SMCCC - so is there a document that describes this features such that
other OSes or hypervisors can implement it? I'm also not entirely sure
of the process of ensuring that the IDs picked are non-conflicting.

Otherwise if this is a KVM specific interface this should probably
belong within the "Vendor Specific Hypervisor Service Calls" section
along with some probing that the hypervisor is actually KVM. Although I
don't see anything KVM specific.

> +
> +The existence of the PV_LOCK hypercall should be probed using the SMCCC 1.1
> +ARCH_FEATURES mechanism before calling it.
> +
> +PV_LOCK_FEATURES
> + ============= ======== ==========
> + Function ID: (uint32) 0xC5000040
> + PV_call_id: (uint32) The function to query for support.
> + Return value: (int64) NOT_SUPPORTED (-1) or SUCCESS (0) if the relevant
> + PV-lock feature is supported by the hypervisor.
> + ============= ======== ==========
> +
> +PV_LOCK_PREEMPTED
> + ============= ======== ==========
> + Function ID: (uint32) 0xC5000041
> + Return value: (int64) NOT_SUPPORTED (-1) or SUCCESS (0) if the IPA of
> + this vcpu's pv data structure is configured by
> + the hypervisor.
> + ============= ======== ==========

From the code it looks like there's another argument for this SMC - the
physical address (or IPA) of a struct pvlock_vcpu_state. This structure
also needs to be described as it is part of the ABI.

Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-17 15:22    [W:0.090 / U:3.756 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site