On 2011-04-09 13:18, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-04-09 13:05, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 10:38:10AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2011-04-04 04:15, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:42:07AM +0900, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you for applying. But I found that the patch is wrong and
>>>>>> I'm preparing the new one. Can you please revert it?
>>>> Here is the corrected patch. The first wrong patch clears the interrupts
>>>> bit unconditionally. Which caused losing interrupt.
>>>>
>>>> From 5ed177d35ab14f3b070a0eba2c49400279a3a14b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> Message-Id: <5ed177d35ab14f3b070a0eba2c49400279a3a14b.1301883258.git.yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> In-Reply-To: <cover.1301883258.git.yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> References: <cover.1301883258.git.yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> From: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:00:13 +0900
>>>> Subject: [PATCH 01/30] ioapic: when switches to level trigger mode, interrupts raised repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>> - the trigger mode is edge at first by reset.
>>>> - During initializatoin, the interrupt is raised as edge which is masked.
>>>> The corresponding bit of irr is set.
>>>
>>> ...and that is the actual problem. The spec says: "Interrupt Mask?R/W.
>>> When this bit is 1, the interrupt signal is masked. Edge-sensitive
>>> interrupts signaled on a masked interrupt pin are ignored (i.e., not
>>> delivered or held pending)."
>>>
>>> So this should do the trick in a correct way (untested, please
>>> validate):
>>
>> Thank you for referring the spec. It works.
>> Here's the updated patch with your signed-off-by and my tested-by.
>
> Thanks for testing. I would prefer the following more compact wordings.
>
> Jan
>
> ---------8<----------
>
> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> So far we set IRR for edge IRQs even if the pin is masked. If the guest
> later on unmasks and switches the pin to level-triggered mode, irr will
> remain set, causing an IRQ storm. The point is that setting IRR is not
> correct in this case according to the spec, and avoiding this resolves
> the issue.
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> hw/ioapic.c | 5 +++--
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ioapic.c b/hw/ioapic.c
> index 569327d..6c26e82 100644
> --- a/hw/ioapic.c
> +++ b/hw/ioapic.c
> @@ -160,8 +160,9 @@ static void ioapic_set_irq(void *opaque, int vector, int level)
> s->irr &= ~mask;
> }
> } else {
> - /* edge triggered */
> - if (level) {
> + /* According to the 82093AA manual, we must ignore edge requests
> + * if the input pin is masked. */
> + if (level && !(entry & IOAPIC_LVT_MASKED)) {
> s->irr |= mask;
> ioapic_service(s);
> }
On first glance, it looks like KVM's in-kernel IOAPIC model is affected
by the same issue. As you have the test case at hand, could you run it
against qemu-kvm which stresses the kernel version?
TIA,
Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
