Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>
>> Davide Libenzi wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So up in userspace, the vbus pci-device would have an open reference to
>>>> the kvm guest (derived from /dev/kvm) and an open reference to a vbus
>>>> (derived from /dev/vbus). Lets call these kvmfd, and vbusfd,
>>>> respectively. For something like an interrupt, we would hook the point
>>>> where the PCI-MSI interrupt is assigned, and would do the following:
>>>>
>>>> gsi = kvm_irq_route_gsi();
>>>> fd = eventfd(0, 0);
>>>> ioctl(kvmfd, KVM_IRQFD_ASSIGN, {fd, gsi});
>>>> ioctl(vbusfd, VBUS_SHMSIGNAL_ASSIGN, {sigid, fd});
>>>>
>>>> So userspace orchestrated the assignment of this one eventfd to a KVM
>>>> consumer, and a VBUS producer. The two subsystems do not care about the
>>>> details of the other side of the link, per se. VBUS just knows that it
>>>> can eventfd_signal() its memory region to tell whomever is listening
>>>> that it changed. Likewise, KVM just knows to inject "gsi" when it gets
>>>> signalled. You could equally have given "fd" to a userspace thread for
>>>> either producer or consumer roles, or any other combination.
>>>>
>>>> If we were doing PCI-passthough, substitute the last SHMSIGNAL_ASSIGN
>>>> ioctl call with some PCI_PASSTHROUGH_ASSIGN verb and you get the idea.
>>>>
>>>> The important thing is that once this is established, userspace doesn't
>>>> necessarily care about the fd anymore. So now the question is: do we
>>>> keep it around for other things? Do we keep it around because we don't
>>>> want KVM to see the POLLHUP, or do we address the "release" code so that
>>>> it works even if userspace issued close(fd) at this point. I am not
>>>> sure what the answer is, but this is the scenario we are concerned with
>>>> in this thread. In the example above, vbus is free to produce events on
>>>> its eventfd until it gets a SHMSIGNAL_DEASSIGN request.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I see.
>>> The thing remains, that in order to reliably handle generic
>>> producer/consumer scenarios you'd need a reference counting similar to
>>> pipes, where the notion of producer and consumer is very well defined.
>>>
>>>
>> I see your point.
>>
>> Well, I think the more important thing here is that we address the
>> races, and add support for DEASSIGN. We can do both of those things
>> with any of the patches that you and I have been kicking around. So
>> what I propose is that we move forward with whatever patch you bless as
>> proper for now. This producer-release issue is pretty minor in the
>> grand scheme of things. We can always just have userspace hold the fd.
>>
>
> Is it a real problem? Can it be decently handled on the KVM side?
> Reason I'm asking, is that I wouldn't want to change the interface, only
> to find it unsuitable a few weeks later.
>
To be honest, I am not sure. I would guess its not a *huge* deal,
though it was obviously enough of a concern to at least discuss it. I
can definitely say that I think the other issues which are being fixed
are substantially more important.
>
>
>
>
>> I can either take in the last one you sent, or it sounds like you wanted
>> to possibly do another round of cleanup? Whatever the case may be, let
>> me know and we can coordinate with Andrew/Avi on what tree to pull it
>> into. It sounds like riding in kvm.git is the perhaps the most logical.
>>
>
> Yes, I'd like to drop the pollcb bits (that you can implement KVM-side),
> at least.
> And yes, going kvm.git is probably the best path.
>
Sounds good. Thanks for your patience, Davide. I think we are almost
there! ;)
-Greg
>
>
> - Davide
>
>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
