On 08/03/18 09:31, Yang, Shunyong wrote:
> Hi, Eric,
>
> First, please let me change Christoffer's email to cdall@xxxxxxxxxx. I
> add more information about my test below, please check.
>
> On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 09:57 +0100, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 08/03/18 08:01, Shunyong Yang wrote:
>>>
>>> When resampling irqfds is enabled, level interrupt should be
>>> de-asserted when resampling happens. On page 4-47 of GIC v3
>>> specification IHI0069D, it said,
>>> "When the PE acknowledges an SGI, a PPI, or an SPI at the CPU
>>> interface, the IRI changes the status of the interrupt to active
>>> and pending if:
>>> • It is an edge-triggered interrupt, and another edge has been
>>> detected since the interrupt was acknowledged.
>>> • It is a level-sensitive interrupt, and the level has not been
>>> deasserted since the interrupt was acknowledged."
>>>
>>> GIC v2 specification IHI0048B.b has similar description on page
>>> 3-42 for state machine transition.
>>>
>>> When some VFIO device, like mtty(8250 VFIO mdev emulation driver
>>> in samples/vfio-mdev) triggers a level interrupt, the status
>>> transition in LR is pending-->active-->active and pending.
>>> Then it will wait resampling to de-assert the interrupt.
>>>
>>> Current design of lr_signals_eoi_mi() will return false if state
>>> in LR is not invalid(Inactive). It causes resampling will not
>>> happen
>>> in mtty case.
>>>
>>> This will cause interrupt fired continuously to guest even 8250 IIR
>>> has no interrupt. When 8250's interrupt is configured in shared
>>> mode,
>>> it will pass interrupt to other drivers to handle. However, there
>>> is no other driver involved. Then, a "nobody cared" kernel
>>> complaint
>>> occurs.
>>>
>>> / # cat /dev/ttyS0
>>> [ 4.826836] random: crng init done
>>> [ 6.373620] irq 41: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll"
>>> option)
>>> [ 6.376414] CPU: 0 PID: 1307 Comm: cat Not tainted 4.16.0-rc4 #4
>>> [ 6.378927] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>>> [ 6.380876] Call trace:
>>> [ 6.381937] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x180
>>> [ 6.383495] show_stack+0x14/0x1c
>>> [ 6.384902] dump_stack+0x90/0xb4
>>> [ 6.386312] __report_bad_irq+0x38/0xe0
>>> [ 6.387944] note_interrupt+0x1f4/0x2b8
>>> [ 6.389568] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x54/0x7c
>>> [ 6.391433] handle_irq_event+0x44/0x74
>>> [ 6.393056] handle_fasteoi_irq+0x9c/0x154
>>> [ 6.394784] generic_handle_irq+0x24/0x38
>>> [ 6.396483] __handle_domain_irq+0x60/0xb4
>>> [ 6.398207] gic_handle_irq+0x98/0x1b0
>>> [ 6.399796] el1_irq+0xb0/0x128
>>> [ 6.401138] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x18/0x40
>>> [ 6.403149] __setup_irq+0x41c/0x678
>>> [ 6.404669] request_threaded_irq+0xe0/0x190
>>> [ 6.406474] univ8250_setup_irq+0x208/0x234
>>> [ 6.408250] serial8250_do_startup+0x1b4/0x754
>>> [ 6.410123] serial8250_startup+0x20/0x28
>>> [ 6.411826] uart_startup.part.21+0x78/0x144
>>> [ 6.413633] uart_port_activate+0x50/0x68
>>> [ 6.415328] tty_port_open+0x84/0xd4
>>> [ 6.416851] uart_open+0x34/0x44
>>> [ 6.418229] tty_open+0xec/0x3c8
>>> [ 6.419610] chrdev_open+0xb0/0x198
>>> [ 6.421093] do_dentry_open+0x200/0x310
>>> [ 6.422714] vfs_open+0x54/0x84
>>> [ 6.424054] path_openat+0x2dc/0xf04
>>> [ 6.425569] do_filp_open+0x68/0xd8
>>> [ 6.427044] do_sys_open+0x16c/0x224
>>> [ 6.428563] SyS_openat+0x10/0x18
>>> [ 6.429972] el0_svc_naked+0x30/0x34
>>> [ 6.431494] handlers:
>>> [ 6.432479] [<000000000e9fb4bb>] serial8250_interrupt
>>> [ 6.434597] Disabling IRQ #41
>>>
>>> This patch changes the lr state condition in lr_signals_eoi_mi()
>>> from
>>> invalid(Inactive) to active and pending to avoid this.
>>>
>>> I am not sure about the original design of the condition of
>>> invalid(active). So, This RFC is sent out for comments.
>>>
>>> Cc: Joey Zheng <yu.zheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shunyong Yang <shunyong.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c | 4 ++--
>>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 4 ++--
>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-
>>> v2.c
>>> index e9d840a75e7b..740ee9a5f551 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
>>> @@ -46,8 +46,8 @@ void vgic_v2_set_underflow(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>
>>> static bool lr_signals_eoi_mi(u32 lr_val)
>>> {
>>> - return !(lr_val & GICH_LR_STATE) && (lr_val & GICH_LR_EOI)
>>> &&
>>> - !(lr_val & GICH_LR_HW);
>>> + return !((lr_val & GICH_LR_STATE) ^ GICH_LR_STATE) &&
>>> + (lr_val & GICH_LR_EOI) && !(lr_val & GICH_LR_HW);
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-
>>> v3.c
>>> index 6b329414e57a..43111bba7af9 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
>>> @@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ void vgic_v3_set_underflow(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>
>>> static bool lr_signals_eoi_mi(u64 lr_val)
>>> {
>>> - return !(lr_val & ICH_LR_STATE) && (lr_val & ICH_LR_EOI)
>>> &&
>>> - !(lr_val & ICH_LR_HW);
>>> + return !((lr_val & ICH_LR_STATE) ^ ICH_LR_STATE) &&
>>> + (lr_val & ICH_LR_EOI) && !(lr_val & ICH_LR_HW);
>>
>> In general don't we have this state transition
>>
>> inactive -> pending -> pending + active (1) -> active -> inactive.
>>
>> In that case won't we lower the virt irq level when folding the LR on
>> Pending + Active state, which is not was we want?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Eric
>
> In current code, in my test, when I output LR value of the mtty IRQ 41
> (hwirq = 36) in vgic_v3_fold_lr_state(). The LR's transition starts
> like following,
>
> 0-->50a0020000000024-->90a0020000000024-->d0a0020000000024
>
> That is inactive-->pending-->active-->pending + active.
> Then it keep running cyclic pending-->active-->pending + active.
>
> The level interrupt de-assert should happen in following code
> /* Notify fds when the guest EOI'ed a level-triggered IRQ */
> if (lr_signals_eoi_mi(val) && vgic_valid_spi(vcpu->kvm, intid))
> kvm_notify_acked_irq(vcpu->kvm, 0,
> intid - VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS);
>
> But as addressed in commit message, lr_signals_eoi_mi() will return
> false if state in LR is not invalid(inactive), so it has no chance to
> de-assert the level interrupt in my test.
The problem is that pending+active is not an indication that the guest
has actually EOI'd anything. In only indicates that it has been activated.
Note that there is a bit of vocabulary discrepancy between KVM and the
ARM architecture: KVM uses "acked" where ARM uses EOI. ARM uses "ACK" or
"Activate" for something entirely different. Maybe the confusion stems
from this difference.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
