On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:48:15AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 10:49 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:06:42PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 19:12 -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 03:36 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 06:26:31PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 03:01 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > You keep saying this but it is still true: once irqfd > > > > > > > is closed eoifd does not get any more interrupts. > > > > > > > > > > > > How does that matter? > > > > > > > > > > Well if it does not get events it is disabled. > > > > > so you have one ifc disabling another, anyway. > > > > > > > > And a level irqfd without an eoifd can never be de-asserted. Either we > > > > make modular components, assemble them to do useful work, and > > > > disassemble them independently so they can be used by future interfaces > > > > or we bundle eoifd as just an option of irqfd. Which is it gonna be? > > > > > > I don't think I've been successful at explaining my reasoning for making > > > EOI notification a separate interface, so let me try again... > > > > > > When kvm is not enabled, the qemu vfio driver still needs to know about > > > EOIs to re-enable the physical interrupt. Since the ioapic is emulated > > > in qemu, we can setup a notifier for this and create abstraction to make > > > it non-x86 specific, etc. We just need to come up with a design and > > > implement it. But what happens when kvm is then enabled? ioapic > > > emulation moves to the kernel (assume kvm includes irqchip for this > > > argument even though it doesn't for POWER), qemu no longer knows about > > > EOIs, and the interface we just created to handle the non-kvm case stops > > > working. Is anyone going to accept adding a qemu EOI notification > > > interface that only works when kvm is not enabled? > > > > Yes, it's only a question of abstracting it at the right level. > > > > For example, if as you suggest below kvm gives you an eventfd that > > asserts an irq, laters automatically deasserts it and notifies another > > eventfd, we can do exactly this in both tcg and kvm: > > > > setup_level_irq(int gsi, int assert_eventfd, int deassert_eventfd) > > > > Not advocating this interface but pointing out that to make > > same abstraction to work in tcg and kvm, see what it does in > > each of them first. > > The tcg model I was thinking of is that we continue to use qemu_set_irq > to assert and de-assert the interrupt and add an eoi/ack notification > mechanism, much like the ack notifier that already exists in kvm. There > doesn't seem to be much advantage to creating a new interrupt > infrastructure in tcg that can trigger interrupts by eventfds, so I > assume VFIO is always going to be responsible for the translation of an > eventfd to an irq assertion, get some kind of notification through qemu, > de-assert the interrupt and unmask the device. With that model in mind, > perhaps it makes more sense why I've been keeping the eoi/ack separate > from irqfd. > > > > I suspect we therefore need a notification mechanism between kvm and > > > qemu to make it possible for that interface to continue working. > > > > Even though no one is actually using it. IMHO, this is a maintainance > > problem. > > That's why I'm designing it the way I am. VFIO will make use of it. It > will just be using the de-assert and notify mode vs a notify-only mode > that tcg would use. It would also be easy to add an option to vfio so > that we could fully test both modes. > > > > An > > > eventfd also seems like the right mechanism there. A simple > > > modification to the proposed KVM_EOIFD here would allow it to trigger an > > > eventfd when an EOI is written to a specific gsi on > > > KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID (define a flag and pass gsi in place of > > > key). > > > > > > The split proposed here does require some assembly, but KVM_EOIFD is > > > re-usable as either a de-assert and notify mechanism tied to an irqfd or > > > a notify-only mechanism allowing users of a qemu EOI notification > > > infrastructure to continue working. vfio doesn't necessarily need this > > > middle ground, but can easily be used to test it. > > > > > > The alternative is that we pull eoifd into KVM_IRQFD and invent some > > > other new EOI interface for qemu. That means we get EOIs tied to an > > > irqfd via one path and other EOIs via another ioctl. Personally that > > > seems less desirable, but I'm willing to explore that route if > > > necessary. Thanks, > > > > > > Alex > > > > Maybe we should focus on the fact that we notify userspace that we > > deasserted interrupt instead of EOI. > > But will a tcg user want the de-assert? I assume not. The de-assert is > an optimization to allow us to bypass evaluation in userspace. In tcg > we're already there. Thanks, > > Alex Look what I am saying forget tcg and APIs. Build a kernel interface that makes sense. Then in qemu look at kvm and tcg and build abstraction for it. Building kernel interface so you can make nice abstractions in tcg is backwards. -- MST -- 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
