On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:55:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-08 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API? Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
> >>>>> necessary for all use cases we have. Threaded MSIs do not appear to me
> >>>>> like have to be handled that conservatively, but maybe I'm missing some
> >>>>> detail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> btw, I'm hoping we can unthread assigned MSIs. If the delivery is
> >>>> unicast, we can precalculate everything and all the handler has to do is
> >>>> set the IRR, KVM_REQ_EVENT, and kick the vcpu. All of these can be done
> >>>> from interrupt context with just RCU locking.
> >>>
> >>> There is really no need to run MSI/MSI-X interrupts threaded for
> >>> KVM. I'm running the patch below for quite some time and it works like
> >>> a charm.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> tglx
> >>> ----
> >>> Index: linux-2.6/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
> >>> ===================================================================
> >>> --- linux-2.6.orig/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
> >>> +++ linux-2.6/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
> >>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thre
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_MSI
> >>> -static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msi(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>> +static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_msi_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>> {
> >>> struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *assigned_dev = dev_id;
> >>>
> >>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thre
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>> #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_MSIX
> >>> -static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msix(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>> +static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_msix_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>> {
> >>> struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *assigned_dev = dev_id;
> >>> int index = find_index_from_host_irq(assigned_dev, irq);
> >>> @@ -346,9 +346,8 @@ static int assigned_device_enable_host_m
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> dev->host_irq = dev->dev->irq;
> >>> - if (request_threaded_irq(dev->host_irq, NULL,
> >>> - kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msi, 0,
> >>> - dev->irq_name, dev)) {
> >>> + if (request_irq(dev->host_irq, kvm_assigned_dev_msi_handler, 0,
> >>> + dev->irq_name, dev)) {
> >>> pci_disable_msi(dev->dev);
> >>> return -EIO;
> >>> }
> >>> @@ -373,9 +372,9 @@ static int assigned_device_enable_host_m
> >>> return r;
> >>>
> >>> for (i = 0; i < dev->entries_nr; i++) {
> >>> - r = request_threaded_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
> >>> - NULL, kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msix,
> >>> - 0, dev->irq_name, dev);
> >>> + r = request_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
> >>> + kvm_assigned_dev_msix_handler, 0,
> >>> + dev->irq_name, dev);
> >>> if (r)
> >>> goto err;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> This may work in practice but has two conceptual problems:
> >> - we do not want to run a potential broadcast to all VCPUs to run in
> >> a host IRQ handler
> >> - crazy user space could have configured the route to end up in the
> >> PIC or IOAPIC, and both are not hard-IRQ safe (this should probably
> >> be caught on setup)
> >>
> >> So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
> >> MSI/MSI-X vector.
> >
> > I did this in the past:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/18/287
> >
> > Have no hw to test this atm but if there are any takers
> > wanting to play with it I can update and post.
>
> Just add check that allow only unicasts, and this should be fine.
>
> Jan
If I code it up you can test it?
> --
> 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
--
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
