Stefano Stabellini
2012-Feb-14 13:07 UTC
[PATCH] arm: support fewer LRs register than virtual irqs
If the vgic needs to inject a virtual irq into the guest, but no free
LR registers are available, add the irq to a list and return.
Whenever an LR register becomes available we add the queued irq to it
and remove it from the list.
We use the gic lock to protect the list and the bitmask.
Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
---
xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
index adc10bb..97c223c 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
#include <xen/sched.h>
#include <xen/errno.h>
#include <xen/softirq.h>
+#include <xen/list.h>
#include <asm/p2m.h>
#include <asm/domain.h>
@@ -45,6 +46,8 @@ static struct {
unsigned int lines;
unsigned int cpus;
spinlock_t lock;
+ uint64_t lr_mask;
+ struct list_head lr_pending;
} gic;
irq_desc_t irq_desc[NR_IRQS];
@@ -247,6 +250,8 @@ static void __cpuinit gic_hyp_init(void)
GICH[GICH_HCR] = GICH_HCR_EN;
GICH[GICH_MISR] = GICH_MISR_EOI;
+ gic.lr_mask = 0ULL;
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&gic.lr_pending);
}
/* Set up the GIC */
@@ -345,16 +350,35 @@ int __init setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irqaction
*new)
return rc;
}
-void gic_set_guest_irq(unsigned int virtual_irq,
+static inline void gic_set_lr(int lr, unsigned int virtual_irq,
unsigned int state, unsigned int priority)
{
- BUG_ON(virtual_irq > nr_lrs);
- GICH[GICH_LR + virtual_irq] = state |
+ BUG_ON(lr > nr_lrs);
+ GICH[GICH_LR + lr] = state |
GICH_LR_MAINTENANCE_IRQ |
((priority >> 3) << GICH_LR_PRIORITY_SHIFT) |
((virtual_irq & GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_MASK) <<
GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_SHIFT);
}
+void gic_set_guest_irq(unsigned int virtual_irq,
+ unsigned int state, unsigned int priority)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ spin_lock(&gic.lock);
+ for (i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++) {
+ if (!test_and_set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask))
+ {
+ gic_set_lr(i, virtual_irq, state, priority);
+ spin_unlock(&gic.lock);
+ return;
+ }
+ }
+ list_add_tail(&irq_to_pending(current, virtual_irq)->lr_link,
&gic.lr_pending);
+ spin_unlock(&gic.lock);
+ return;
+}
+
void gic_inject_irq_start(void)
{
uint32_t hcr;
@@ -435,13 +459,26 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id,
struct cpu_user_regs *r
uint32_t lr;
uint64_t eisr = GICH[GICH_EISR0] | (((uint64_t) GICH[GICH_EISR1]) <<
32);
- for ( i = 0; i < 64; i++ ) {
+ for ( i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++ ) {
if ( eisr & ((uint64_t)1 << i) ) {
struct pending_irq *p;
+ spin_lock(&gic.lock);
lr = GICH[GICH_LR + i];
virq = lr & GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_MASK;
GICH[GICH_LR + i] = 0;
+ clear_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask);
+
+ if ( !list_empty(gic.lr_pending.next) ) {
+ p = list_entry(gic.lr_pending.next, typeof(*p), lr_link);
+ gic_set_lr(i, p->irq, GICH_LR_PENDING, p->priority);
+ list_del(&p->lr_link);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->lr_link);
+ set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask);
+ } else {
+ gic_inject_irq_stop();
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&gic.lock);
spin_lock(¤t->arch.vgic.lock);
p = irq_to_pending(current, virq);
@@ -449,7 +486,6 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id,
struct cpu_user_regs *r
p->desc->status &= ~IRQ_INPROGRESS;
GICC[GICC_DIR] = virq;
}
- gic_inject_irq_stop();
list_del(&p->link);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->link);
cpu_raise_softirq(current->processor, VGIC_SOFTIRQ);
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
index 3372d14..75095ff 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ struct pending_irq
struct irq_desc *desc; /* only set it the irq corresponds to a physical irq
*/
uint8_t priority;
struct list_head link;
+ struct list_head lr_link;
};
struct arch_domain
--
1.7.8.3
Ian Campbell
2012-Feb-14 13:11 UTC
Re: [XenARM] [PATCH] arm: support fewer LRs register than virtual irqs
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 13:07 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:> If the vgic needs to inject a virtual irq into the guest, but no free > LR registers are available, add the irq to a list and return. > Whenever an LR register becomes available we add the queued irq to it > and remove it from the list. > We use the gic lock to protect the list and the bitmask.There''s no need to order the IRQs by priority and ensure that the highest priorities are in the LRs? Ian.> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> > --- > xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c > index adc10bb..97c223c 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ > #include <xen/sched.h> > #include <xen/errno.h> > #include <xen/softirq.h> > +#include <xen/list.h> > #include <asm/p2m.h> > #include <asm/domain.h> > > @@ -45,6 +46,8 @@ static struct { > unsigned int lines; > unsigned int cpus; > spinlock_t lock; > + uint64_t lr_mask; > + struct list_head lr_pending; > } gic; > > irq_desc_t irq_desc[NR_IRQS]; > @@ -247,6 +250,8 @@ static void __cpuinit gic_hyp_init(void) > > GICH[GICH_HCR] = GICH_HCR_EN; > GICH[GICH_MISR] = GICH_MISR_EOI; > + gic.lr_mask = 0ULL; > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&gic.lr_pending); > } > > /* Set up the GIC */ > @@ -345,16 +350,35 @@ int __init setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irqaction *new) > return rc; > } > > -void gic_set_guest_irq(unsigned int virtual_irq, > +static inline void gic_set_lr(int lr, unsigned int virtual_irq, > unsigned int state, unsigned int priority) > { > - BUG_ON(virtual_irq > nr_lrs); > - GICH[GICH_LR + virtual_irq] = state | > + BUG_ON(lr > nr_lrs); > + GICH[GICH_LR + lr] = state | > GICH_LR_MAINTENANCE_IRQ | > ((priority >> 3) << GICH_LR_PRIORITY_SHIFT) | > ((virtual_irq & GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_MASK) << GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_SHIFT); > } > > +void gic_set_guest_irq(unsigned int virtual_irq, > + unsigned int state, unsigned int priority) > +{ > + int i; > + > + spin_lock(&gic.lock); > + for (i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++) { > + if (!test_and_set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask)) > + { > + gic_set_lr(i, virtual_irq, state, priority); > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > + return; > + } > + } > + list_add_tail(&irq_to_pending(current, virtual_irq)->lr_link, &gic.lr_pending); > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > + return; > +} > + > void gic_inject_irq_start(void) > { > uint32_t hcr; > @@ -435,13 +459,26 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id, struct cpu_user_regs *r > uint32_t lr; > uint64_t eisr = GICH[GICH_EISR0] | (((uint64_t) GICH[GICH_EISR1]) << 32); > > - for ( i = 0; i < 64; i++ ) { > + for ( i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++ ) { > if ( eisr & ((uint64_t)1 << i) ) { > struct pending_irq *p; > > + spin_lock(&gic.lock); > lr = GICH[GICH_LR + i]; > virq = lr & GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_MASK; > GICH[GICH_LR + i] = 0; > + clear_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask); > + > + if ( !list_empty(gic.lr_pending.next) ) { > + p = list_entry(gic.lr_pending.next, typeof(*p), lr_link); > + gic_set_lr(i, p->irq, GICH_LR_PENDING, p->priority); > + list_del(&p->lr_link); > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->lr_link); > + set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask); > + } else { > + gic_inject_irq_stop(); > + } > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > > spin_lock(¤t->arch.vgic.lock); > p = irq_to_pending(current, virq); > @@ -449,7 +486,6 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id, struct cpu_user_regs *r > p->desc->status &= ~IRQ_INPROGRESS; > GICC[GICC_DIR] = virq; > } > - gic_inject_irq_stop(); > list_del(&p->link); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->link); > cpu_raise_softirq(current->processor, VGIC_SOFTIRQ); > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h > index 3372d14..75095ff 100644 > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ struct pending_irq > struct irq_desc *desc; /* only set it the irq corresponds to a physical irq */ > uint8_t priority; > struct list_head link; > + struct list_head lr_link; > }; > > struct arch_domain
Stefano Stabellini
2012-Feb-14 13:34 UTC
Re: [XenARM] [PATCH] arm: support fewer LRs register than virtual irqs
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Ian Campbell wrote:> On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 13:07 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > If the vgic needs to inject a virtual irq into the guest, but no free > > LR registers are available, add the irq to a list and return. > > Whenever an LR register becomes available we add the queued irq to it > > and remove it from the list. > > We use the gic lock to protect the list and the bitmask. > > There''s no need to order the IRQs by priority and ensure that the > highest priorities are in the LRs?You are right, they need to be ordered by priority. -->8-->From 027ddc0a08c5608797b03e66b87178cd2522ad07 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:23:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] arm: support fewer LR registers than virtual irqs If the vgic needs to inject a virtual irq into the guest, but no free LR registers are available, add the irq to a list and return. Whenever an LR register becomes available we add the queued irq to it and remove it from the list. We use the gic lock to protect the list and the bitmask. Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> --- xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h | 1 + 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c index adc10bb..129b7ff 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ #include <xen/sched.h> #include <xen/errno.h> #include <xen/softirq.h> +#include <xen/list.h> #include <asm/p2m.h> #include <asm/domain.h> @@ -45,6 +46,8 @@ static struct { unsigned int lines; unsigned int cpus; spinlock_t lock; + uint64_t lr_mask; + struct list_head lr_pending; } gic; irq_desc_t irq_desc[NR_IRQS]; @@ -247,6 +250,8 @@ static void __cpuinit gic_hyp_init(void) GICH[GICH_HCR] = GICH_HCR_EN; GICH[GICH_MISR] = GICH_MISR_EOI; + gic.lr_mask = 0ULL; + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&gic.lr_pending); } /* Set up the GIC */ @@ -345,16 +350,47 @@ int __init setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irqaction *new) return rc; } -void gic_set_guest_irq(unsigned int virtual_irq, +static inline void gic_set_lr(int lr, unsigned int virtual_irq, unsigned int state, unsigned int priority) { - BUG_ON(virtual_irq > nr_lrs); - GICH[GICH_LR + virtual_irq] = state | + BUG_ON(lr > nr_lrs); + GICH[GICH_LR + lr] = state | GICH_LR_MAINTENANCE_IRQ | ((priority >> 3) << GICH_LR_PRIORITY_SHIFT) | ((virtual_irq & GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_MASK) << GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_SHIFT); } +void gic_set_guest_irq(unsigned int virtual_irq, + unsigned int state, unsigned int priority) +{ + int i; + struct pending_irq *iter, *n; + + spin_lock(&gic.lock); + for (i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++) { + if (!test_and_set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask)) + { + gic_set_lr(i, virtual_irq, state, priority); + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); + return; + } + } + + n = irq_to_pending(current, virtual_irq); + list_for_each_entry ( iter, &gic.lr_pending, lr_link ) + { + if ( iter->priority < priority ) + { + list_add_tail(&n->lr_link, &iter->lr_link); + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); + return; + } + } + list_add(&n->lr_link, &gic.lr_pending); + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); + return; +} + void gic_inject_irq_start(void) { uint32_t hcr; @@ -435,13 +471,26 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id, struct cpu_user_regs *r uint32_t lr; uint64_t eisr = GICH[GICH_EISR0] | (((uint64_t) GICH[GICH_EISR1]) << 32); - for ( i = 0; i < 64; i++ ) { + for ( i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++ ) { if ( eisr & ((uint64_t)1 << i) ) { struct pending_irq *p; + spin_lock(&gic.lock); lr = GICH[GICH_LR + i]; virq = lr & GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_MASK; GICH[GICH_LR + i] = 0; + clear_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask); + + if ( !list_empty(gic.lr_pending.next) ) { + p = list_entry(gic.lr_pending.next, typeof(*p), lr_link); + gic_set_lr(i, p->irq, GICH_LR_PENDING, p->priority); + list_del(&p->lr_link); + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->lr_link); + set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask); + } else { + gic_inject_irq_stop(); + } + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); spin_lock(¤t->arch.vgic.lock); p = irq_to_pending(current, virq); @@ -449,7 +498,6 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id, struct cpu_user_regs *r p->desc->status &= ~IRQ_INPROGRESS; GICC[GICC_DIR] = virq; } - gic_inject_irq_stop(); list_del(&p->link); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->link); cpu_raise_softirq(current->processor, VGIC_SOFTIRQ); diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h index 3372d14..75095ff 100644 --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ struct pending_irq struct irq_desc *desc; /* only set it the irq corresponds to a physical irq */ uint8_t priority; struct list_head link; + struct list_head lr_link; }; struct arch_domain -- 1.7.8.3
David Vrabel
2012-Feb-14 15:25 UTC
Re: [XenARM] [PATCH] arm: support fewer LRs register than virtual irqs
On 14/02/12 13:34, Stefano Stabellini wrote:> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 13:07 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> If the vgic needs to inject a virtual irq into the guest, but no free >>> LR registers are available, add the irq to a list and return. >>> Whenever an LR register becomes available we add the queued irq to it >>> and remove it from the list. >>> We use the gic lock to protect the list and the bitmask. >> >> There''s no need to order the IRQs by priority and ensure that the >> highest priorities are in the LRs? > > You are right, they need to be ordered by priority. > > -->8-- > >>From 027ddc0a08c5608797b03e66b87178cd2522ad07 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:23:56 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] arm: support fewer LR registers than virtual irqs > > If the vgic needs to inject a virtual irq into the guest, but no free > LR registers are available, add the irq to a list and return. > Whenever an LR register becomes available we add the queued irq to it > and remove it from the list. > We use the gic lock to protect the list and the bitmask. > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> > --- > xen/arch/arm/gic.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c > index adc10bb..129b7ff 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/gic.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/gic.c > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ > #include <xen/sched.h> > #include <xen/errno.h> > #include <xen/softirq.h> > +#include <xen/list.h> > #include <asm/p2m.h> > #include <asm/domain.h> > > @@ -45,6 +46,8 @@ static struct { > unsigned int lines; > unsigned int cpus; > spinlock_t lock; > + uint64_t lr_mask; > + struct list_head lr_pending; > } gic; > > irq_desc_t irq_desc[NR_IRQS]; > @@ -247,6 +250,8 @@ static void __cpuinit gic_hyp_init(void) > > GICH[GICH_HCR] = GICH_HCR_EN; > GICH[GICH_MISR] = GICH_MISR_EOI; > + gic.lr_mask = 0ULL; > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&gic.lr_pending); > } > > /* Set up the GIC */ > @@ -345,16 +350,47 @@ int __init setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irqaction *new) > return rc; > } > > -void gic_set_guest_irq(unsigned int virtual_irq, > +static inline void gic_set_lr(int lr, unsigned int virtual_irq, > unsigned int state, unsigned int priority) > { > - BUG_ON(virtual_irq > nr_lrs); > - GICH[GICH_LR + virtual_irq] = state | > + BUG_ON(lr > nr_lrs); > + GICH[GICH_LR + lr] = state | > GICH_LR_MAINTENANCE_IRQ | > ((priority >> 3) << GICH_LR_PRIORITY_SHIFT) | > ((virtual_irq & GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_MASK) << GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_SHIFT); > } > > +void gic_set_guest_irq(unsigned int virtual_irq, > + unsigned int state, unsigned int priority) > +{ > + int i; > + struct pending_irq *iter, *n; > + > + spin_lock(&gic.lock); > + for (i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++) { > + if (!test_and_set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask)) > + { > + gic_set_lr(i, virtual_irq, state, priority); > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > + return; > + } > + }You can skip this loop if gic.lr_pending is non-empty as there won''t be any spare bits in gic.lr_mask.> + n = irq_to_pending(current, virtual_irq); > + list_for_each_entry ( iter, &gic.lr_pending, lr_link ) > + { > + if ( iter->priority < priority ) > + { > + list_add_tail(&n->lr_link, &iter->lr_link); > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > + return; > + } > + }How many pending irqs are expected? If it''s lots then looping through a simple list like this might be slow. Something to keep in mind -- I wouldn''t try and fix it now.> + list_add(&n->lr_link, &gic.lr_pending); > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > + return; > +} > + > void gic_inject_irq_start(void) > { > uint32_t hcr; > @@ -435,13 +471,26 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id, struct cpu_user_regs *r > uint32_t lr; > uint64_t eisr = GICH[GICH_EISR0] | (((uint64_t) GICH[GICH_EISR1]) << 32); > > - for ( i = 0; i < 64; i++ ) { > + for ( i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++ ) { > if ( eisr & ((uint64_t)1 << i) ) { > struct pending_irq *p; > > + spin_lock(&gic.lock); > lr = GICH[GICH_LR + i]; > virq = lr & GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_MASK; > GICH[GICH_LR + i] = 0; > + clear_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask); > + > + if ( !list_empty(gic.lr_pending.next) ) { > + p = list_entry(gic.lr_pending.next, typeof(*p), lr_link); > + gic_set_lr(i, p->irq, GICH_LR_PENDING, p->priority); > + list_del(&p->lr_link); > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->lr_link);I don''t think you need the INIT_LIST_HEAD() here (and even if you did you should use list_del_init()). You only need to init nodes if you need to test if they are in a list or not.> + set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask); > + } else { > + gic_inject_irq_stop(); > + } > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > > spin_lock(¤t->arch.vgic.lock); > p = irq_to_pending(current, virq); > @@ -449,7 +498,6 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id, struct cpu_user_regs *r > p->desc->status &= ~IRQ_INPROGRESS; > GICC[GICC_DIR] = virq; > } > - gic_inject_irq_stop(); > list_del(&p->link); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->link);Similarly, here (but this should be fixed up in a separate patch).> cpu_raise_softirq(current->processor, VGIC_SOFTIRQ); > diff --git a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h > index 3372d14..75095ff 100644 > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/domain.h > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ struct pending_irq > struct irq_desc *desc; /* only set it the irq corresponds to a physical irq */ > uint8_t priority; > struct list_head link; > + struct list_head lr_link; > }; > > struct arch_domain
Stefano Stabellini
2012-Feb-15 12:35 UTC
Re: [XenARM] [PATCH] arm: support fewer LRs register than virtual irqs
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, David Vrabel wrote:> > +void gic_set_guest_irq(unsigned int virtual_irq, > > + unsigned int state, unsigned int priority) > > +{ > > + int i; > > + struct pending_irq *iter, *n; > > + > > + spin_lock(&gic.lock); > > + for (i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++) { > > + if (!test_and_set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask)) > > + { > > + gic_set_lr(i, virtual_irq, state, priority); > > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > > + return; > > + } > > + } > > You can skip this loop if gic.lr_pending is non-empty as there won''t be > any spare bits in gic.lr_mask.Right> > + n = irq_to_pending(current, virtual_irq); > > + list_for_each_entry ( iter, &gic.lr_pending, lr_link ) > > + { > > + if ( iter->priority < priority ) > > + { > > + list_add_tail(&n->lr_link, &iter->lr_link); > > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > > + return; > > + } > > + } > > How many pending irqs are expected? If it''s lots then looping through a > simple list like this might be slow. Something to keep in mind -- I > wouldn''t try and fix it now.How many interrupts are the guests going to receive while 4 are already in service? I am not sure yet.> > + list_add(&n->lr_link, &gic.lr_pending); > > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > > + return; > > +} > > + > > void gic_inject_irq_start(void) > > { > > uint32_t hcr; > > @@ -435,13 +471,26 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id, struct cpu_user_regs *r > > uint32_t lr; > > uint64_t eisr = GICH[GICH_EISR0] | (((uint64_t) GICH[GICH_EISR1]) << 32); > > > > - for ( i = 0; i < 64; i++ ) { > > + for ( i = 0; i < nr_lrs; i++ ) { > > if ( eisr & ((uint64_t)1 << i) ) { > > struct pending_irq *p; > > > > + spin_lock(&gic.lock); > > lr = GICH[GICH_LR + i]; > > virq = lr & GICH_LR_VIRTUAL_MASK; > > GICH[GICH_LR + i] = 0; > > + clear_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask); > > + > > + if ( !list_empty(gic.lr_pending.next) ) { > > + p = list_entry(gic.lr_pending.next, typeof(*p), lr_link); > > + gic_set_lr(i, p->irq, GICH_LR_PENDING, p->priority); > > + list_del(&p->lr_link); > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->lr_link); > > I don''t think you need the INIT_LIST_HEAD() here (and even if you did > you should use list_del_init()). You only need to init nodes if you > need to test if they are in a list or not.OK> > + set_bit(i, &gic.lr_mask); > > + } else { > > + gic_inject_irq_stop(); > > + } > > + spin_unlock(&gic.lock); > > > > spin_lock(¤t->arch.vgic.lock); > > p = irq_to_pending(current, virq); > > @@ -449,7 +498,6 @@ static void maintenance_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id, struct cpu_user_regs *r > > p->desc->status &= ~IRQ_INPROGRESS; > > GICC[GICC_DIR] = virq; > > } > > - gic_inject_irq_stop(); > > list_del(&p->link); > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->link); > > Similarly, here (but this should be fixed up in a separate patch).OK