On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 08:11:30AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 08:31 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 02:46:29PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 21:11 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 02:05:54PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > We need to prioritize our matching when setting MSI-X vector > > > > > entries. Unused entries should only be used if we don't find > > > > > an exact match or else we risk duplicating entries. This was > > > > > causing an ENOSPC return when trying to mask and unmask MSI-X > > > > > vectors based on guest MSI-X table updates. > > > > > > > > > > The new KVM_CAP_DEVICE_MSIX_MASK extension indicates the > > > > > presence of this fix. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > v2: Add capability indicating MSIX_MASKing now works. > > > > > > > > > > The faulting sequence went something like: > > > > > > > > > > Start: > > > > > [0] entry 0, vector A > > > > > [1] entry 1, vector B > > > > > [2] entry 2, vector C > > > > > > > > > > Set entry 1 to 0: > > > > > [0] entry 0, vector A > > > > > [1] entry 1->1, vector B->0 > > > > > [2] entry 2, vector C > > > > > > > > > > Set entry 2 to 0: > > > > > [0] entry 0, vector A > > > > > [1] entry 1->2, vector 0->0 <- incorrectly matched > > > > > [2] entry 2, vector C > > > > > > > > > > Set entry 2 to C: > > > > > [0] entry 0, vector A > > > > > [1] entry 2->2, vector 0->C <- incorrectly matched again > > > > > [2] entry 2, vector C > > > > > > > > > > Set entry 1 to B: > > > > > [0] entry 0, vector A > > > > > [1] entry 2, vector C > > > > > [2] entry 2, vector C > > > > > -ENOSPC > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt | 5 +++-- > > > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 1 + > > > > > include/linux/kvm.h | 1 + > > > > > virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c | 21 ++++++++++++++------- > > > > > 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > I don't object to fixing this bug. But I don't think > > > > we need a capability for this. Here's why: > > > > > > > > setting an entry to zero is not really matching > > > > what devices need, since that would lose interrupts. > > > > What devices need is mask entries to disable them, > > > > then unmask and get an interrupt if it was delayed. > > > > > > > > So, if we are going to add a new capability, how about > > > > sticking a mask bit in the padding instead? > > > > > > I'll take a look. Are you suggesting then that we'd note the masked > > > interrupt was deferred and inject when unmasked? > > > > > > > As was shown in the past this can even improve performance since we can > > > > propagate the mask bit back to the host device. > > > > > > I'm dubious whether there's actually a use case that benefits from > > > pushing the mask down to hardware. The typical mask case is a temporary > > > mask to update the vector data/address then unmask. We're actually > > > accelerating that by not pushing it down to hardware. Are there real > > > world drivers that enable a vector and then mask it for an extended > > > period of time? > > > > I don't know. Shen Yang at some point said: > > "We have also reproduced the issue on some large scale benchmark on the guest with > > "newer kernel like 2.6.30 on Xen, under very high interrupt rate, due to some > > "interrupt rate limitation mechanism in kernel. > > > > And these patches did push the interrupts down - but not to hardware, > > masking interrupt as pending in kernel only sets a bit, it is only > > pushed down when we next get an interrupt while vector is masked. > > I thought the high rate masking was on older guests, but in any case a > reasonable first step is emulated masking in kvm so that we can > re-inject on unmask and not lose interrupts. Yes, I agree to that. That would also be good for emulated devices. > That can either lead to > lazy hardware masking with no additional change to the API or if someone > takes the reigns on MSI-X table acceleration, we can head in that > direction. The MSI-X table interaction I see on an average sized guest > with an assigned 82576 PF certainly isn't calling out for more > acceleration, but 10G devices and beyond could behave differently. > Thanks, > > Alex -- 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
