On 14/06/17 09:07, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Alex, Marc,
>
> On 31/05/2017 20:24, Alex Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 May 2017 22:13:18 +0200
>> Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> We add two new fields in vfio_pci_irq_ctx struct: deoi and handler.
>>> If deoi is set, this means the physical IRQ attached to the virtual
>>> IRQ is directly deactivated by the guest and the VFIO driver does
>>> not need to disable the physical IRQ and mask it at VFIO level.
>>>
>>> The handler pointer is set accordingly and a wrapper handler is
>>> introduced that calls the chosen handler function.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> ---
>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_private.h | 2 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
>>> index d4d377b..06aa713 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_intrs.c
>>> @@ -121,11 +121,8 @@ void vfio_pci_intx_unmask(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev)
>>> static irqreturn_t vfio_intx_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> {
>>> struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = dev_id;
>>> - unsigned long flags;
>>> int ret = IRQ_NONE;
>>>
>>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&vdev->irqlock, flags);
>>> -
>>> if (!vdev->pci_2_3) {
>>> disable_irq_nosync(vdev->pdev->irq);
>>> vdev->ctx[0].automasked = true;
>>> @@ -137,14 +134,33 @@ static irqreturn_t vfio_intx_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vdev->irqlock, flags);
>>> -
>>> if (ret == IRQ_HANDLED)
>>> vfio_send_intx_eventfd(vdev, NULL);
>>>
>>> return ret;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static irqreturn_t vfio_intx_handler_deoi(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> +{
>>> + struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = dev_id;
>>> +
>>> + vfio_send_intx_eventfd(vdev, NULL);
>>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static irqreturn_t vfio_intx_wrapper_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>> +{
>>> + struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = dev_id;
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> + irqreturn_t ret;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&vdev->irqlock, flags);
>>> + ret = vdev->ctx[0].handler(irq, dev_id);
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vdev->irqlock, flags);
>>> +
>>> + return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int vfio_intx_enable(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev)
>>> {
>>> if (!is_irq_none(vdev))
>>> @@ -208,7 +224,11 @@ static int vfio_intx_set_signal(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev, int fd)
>>> if (!vdev->pci_2_3)
>>> irqflags = 0;
>>>
>>> - ret = request_irq(pdev->irq, vfio_intx_handler,
>>> + if (vdev->ctx[0].deoi)
>>> + vdev->ctx[0].handler = vfio_intx_handler_deoi;
>>> + else
>>> + vdev->ctx[0].handler = vfio_intx_handler;
>>> + ret = request_irq(pdev->irq, vfio_intx_wrapper_handler,
>>> irqflags, vdev->ctx[0].name, vdev);
>>
>>
>> Here's where I think we don't account for irqflags properly. If we get
>> a shared interrupt here, then enabling direct EOI needs to be disabled
>> or else we'll starve other devices sharing the interrupt. In practice,
>> I wonder if this makes PCI direct EOI a useful feature. We could try
>> to get an exclusive interrupt and fallback to shared, but any time we
>> get an exclusive interrupt we're more prone to conflicts with other
>> devices. I might have two VMs that share an interrupt and now it's a
>> race that only the first to setup an IRQ can work. Worse, one of those
>> VMs might be fully booted and switched to MSI and now it's just a
>> matter of time until they reboot in the right way to generate a
>> conflict. I might also have two devices in the same VM that share an
>> IRQ and now I can't start the VM at all because the second device can
>> no longer get an interrupt. This is the same problem we have with the
>> nointxmask flag, it's a useful debugging feature but since the masking
>> is done at the APIC/GIC rather than the device, much like here, it's not
>> very practical for more than debugging and isolating specific devices
>> as requiring APIC/GIC level masking. I'm not sure how to proceed on the
>> PCI side here. Thanks,
>
> So I agree Direct EOI with shared interrupts is a total mess as
> - if the interrupt is not for VFIO, the physical interrupt will not be
> deactivated
> - if the interrupt is for VFIO, the physical interrupt will be
> deactivated through guest virtual interrupt deactivation before
> subsequent physical handlers complete their execution.
>
> By the way, reading
> "http://vfio.blogspot.fr/2014/09/vfio-interrupts-and-how-to-coax-windows.html";
> was really helpful!
>
> So I suggest I drop the feature for VFIO-PCI INTx and respin with
> vfio-platform only. This series then mostly prepares for GICv4 integration.
Agreed. That's probably good enough for the time being.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
