Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2022 18:09:13 +0000 | Subject | Re: [v2 3/6] KVM: arm64: Support pvlock preempted via shared structure | From | Usama Arif <> |
| |
On 07/11/2022 18:02, Punit Agrawal wrote: > Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com> writes: > >> Implement the service call for configuring a shared structure between a >> VCPU and the hypervisor in which the hypervisor can tell whether the >> VCPU is running or not. >> >> The preempted field is zero if the VCPU is not preempted. >> Any other value means the VCPU has been preempted. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zengruan Ye <yezengruan@huawei.com> >> Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@bytedance.com> >> --- >> Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst | 3 ++ >> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 18 ++++++++++ >> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 1 + >> arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile | 2 +- >> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 8 +++++ >> arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 8 +++++ >> arch/arm64/kvm/pvlock.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tools/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 1 + >> 8 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/pvlock.c >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst >> index 3e23084644ba..872a16226ace 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/hypercalls.rst >> @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ The pseudo-firmware bitmap register are as follows: >> Bit-1: KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_PTP: >> The bit represents the Precision Time Protocol KVM service. >> >> + Bit-2: KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_PV_LOCK: >> + The bit represents the Paravirtualized lock service. >> + >> Errors: >> >> ======= ============================================================= >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> index 45e2136322ba..18303b30b7e9 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h >> @@ -417,6 +417,11 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch { >> u64 last_steal; >> gpa_t base; >> } steal; >> + >> + /* Guest PV lock state */ >> + struct { >> + gpa_t base; >> + } pv; > > Using "pv" for the structure isn't quite describing the usage well. It'd > be better to call it "pv_lock" or "pvlock" at the least. > Yes makes sense, will change in next patchset, Thanks.
> [...] >
| |