On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 02:36:41PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:47:53PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> Alex Williamson wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 08:33 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 08:15 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 16:55 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Very surprising: I haven't seen any driver disable MSI expect on device >>>>>>> destructor path. Is this a linux guest? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, Debian 2.6.26 kernel. I'll check it it behaves the same on newer >>>>>> upstream kernels and try to figure out why it's doing it. >>>>>> >>>>> Updating the guest to 2.6.29 seems to fix the interrupt toggling. So >>>>> it's either something in older kernels or something debian introduced, >>>>> but that seems unlikely. >>>>> >>>> For the curious, this was fixed prior to 2.6.27-rc1 by this: >>>> >>>> commit ce6fce4295ba727b36fdc73040e444bd1aae64cd >>>> Author: Matthew Wilcox >>>> Date: Fri Jul 25 15:42:58 2008 -0600 >>>> >>>> PCI MSI: Don't disable MSIs if the mask bit isn't supported >>>> David Vrabel has a device which generates an interrupt >>>> storm on the INTx >>>> pin if we disable MSI interrupts altogether. Masking interrupts is only >>>> a performance optimisation, so we can ignore the request to mask the >>>> interrupt. >>>> >>>> It looks like without the maskbit attribute on MSI, the default way to >>>> mask an MSI interrupt was to toggle the MSI enable bit. This was >>>> introduced in 58e0543e8f355b32f0778a18858b255adb7402ae, so it's lifespan >>>> was probably 2.6.21 - 2.6.26. >>>> >>>> >>> On the other hand, if the host device supports this maskbit >>> attribute, we might want to support it. I'm not sure exactly how >>> though. >>> >>> If we trap msi entry writes, we're inviting the guest to exit every >>> time it wants to disable interrupts. If we don't, we're inviting >>> spurious interrupts, which will cause unwanted exits and injections. >>> >> >> Avi, I think you are mixing up MSI and MSI-X. MSI does not have any tables: >> all changes go through configuration writes, which AFAIK we always trap. >> Isn't that right? >> > > Right. > >> On the other hand, in MSI-X mask bit is mandatory, not optional >> so we'll have to support it for assigned devices at some point. >> >> If we are worried about speed of masking/unmasking MSI-X interrupts for >> assigned devices (older kernels used to mask them, recent kernels leave >> this to drivers) we will probably need to have MSI-X support in the >> kernel, and have kernel examine the mask bit before injecting the >> interrupt, just like real devices do. >> > > Yes. Actually, if we do that, we'll need to address a race where a driver has updated the mask bit in the window after we tested it and before we inject the interrupt. Not sure how to do this. > Let's actually quantify this though. Several times per second > doesn't qualify. Oh, I didn't actually imply that we need to optimize this path. You seemed worried about the speed of masking the interrupt, and I commented that to optimize it we'll have to move it to kernel. >>> Maybe we ought to let the guest write to the msi tables without >>> trapping, and in the injection logic do something like >>> >>> msi_entry = *msi_entry_ptr; >>> mb(); >>> if (msi_entry != msi->last_msi_entry) >>> msi_reconfigure(); >>> if (msi_enabled(msi_entry)) >>> insert_the_needle(); >>> >> >> I don't really understand why do you need the reconfigure >> and tracking last msi entry here. >> > > The msi entry can change the vector and delivery mode, no? This way we > can cache some stuff instead of decoding it each time. For example, if > the entry points at a specific vcpu, we can cache the vcpu pointer, > instead of searching for the apic ID. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
