On 2011-02-02 16:46, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2011-02-02 16:09, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2011 04:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> On 2011-02-02 15:43, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> On 2011-02-02 15:35, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/02/2011 04:30 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2011-02-02 14:05, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/02/2011 02:50 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Opps, -smp 1. With -smp 2 it boot almost completely and then hangs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, good (or not good). With Windows 2003 Server, I actually get a Blue
>>>>>>>>> Screen (Stop 0x000000b8).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Userspace APIC is broken since it may run with an outdated cr8, does
>>>>>>>> reverting 27a4f7976d5 help?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you elaborate on what is broken? The way hw/apic.c maintains the
>>>>>>> tpr? Would it make sense to compare this against the in-kernel model? Or
>>>>>>> do you mean something else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem, IIRC, was that we look up the TPR but it may already have
>>>>>> been changed by the running vcpu. Not 100% sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is indeed the problem then the fix would be to process the APIC
>>>>>> in vcpu context (which is what the kernel does - we set a bit in the IRR
>>>>>> and all further processing is synchronous).
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean: user space changes the tpr value while the vcpu is in KVM_RUN,
>>>>> then we return from the kernel and overwrite the tpr in the apic with
>>>>> the vcpu's view, right?
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, probably rather that there is a discrepancy between tpr and irr.
>>>> The latter is changed asynchronously /wrt to the vcpu, the former /wrt
>>>> the user space device model.
>>>
>>> And yet, both are synchronized via qemu_mutex. So we're still missing
>>> something in this picture.
>>>
>>>> Run apic_set_irq on the vcpu?
>>>
>>> static void apic_set_irq(APICState *s, int vector_num, int trigger_mode)
>>> {
>>> apic_irq_delivered += !get_bit(s->irr, vector_num);
>>>
>>> trace_apic_set_irq(apic_irq_delivered);
>>>
>>> set_bit(s->irr, vector_num);
>>>
>>> This is even more async with kernel irqchip
>>>
>>> if (trigger_mode)
>>> set_bit(s->tmr, vector_num);
>>> else
>>> reset_bit(s->tmr, vector_num);
>>>
>>> This is protected by qemu_mutex
>>>
>>> apic_update_irq(s);
>>>
>>> This will be run the next time the vcpu exits, via apic_get_interrupt().
>>
>> The decision to pend an IRQ (and potentially kick the vcpu) takes place
>> immediately in acip_update_irq. And it is based on current irr as well
>> as tpr. But we update again when user space returns with a new value.
>>
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> Did you check whether reverting that commit helps?
>>>
>>
>> Just did so, and I can no longer reproduce the problem. Hmm...
>>
> If there is no problem in the logic of this commit (and I do not see
> one yet) then we somewhere miss kicking vcpu when interrupt, that should be
> handled, arrives?
I'm not yet confident about the logic of the kernel patch: mov to cr8 is
serializing. If the guest raises the tpr and then signals this with a
succeeding, non vm-exiting instruction to the other vcpus, one of those
could inject an interrupt with a higher priority than the previous tpr,
but a lower one than current tpr. QEMU user space would accept this
interrupt - and would likely surprise the guest. Do I miss something?
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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
