On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 12:33 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:26:15PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 13:40 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 08/06/2012 01:38 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >
> > > > Regarding the implementation, instead of a linked list, would an array
> > > > of counters parallel to the bitmap make it simpler?
> > >
> > > Or even, replace the bitmap with an array of counters.
> >
> > I'm not sure a counter array is what we're really after. That gives us
> > reference counting for the irq source IDs, but not the key->gsi lookup.
> > It also highlights another issue, that we have a limited set of source
> > IDs. Looks like we have BITS_PER_LONG IDs, with two already used, one
> > for the shared userspace ID and another for the PIT. How happy are we
> > going to be with a limit of 62 level interrupts in use at one time?
> >
> > It's arguably a reasonable number since the most virtualization friendly
> > devices (sr-iov VFs) don't even support this kind of interrupt. It's
> > also very wasteful allocating an entire source ID for a single GSI
> > within that source ID. PCI supports interrupts A, B, C, and D, which,
> > in the most optimal config, each go to different GSIs. So we could
> > theoretically be more efficient in our use and allocation of irq source
> > IDs if we tracked use by the source ID, gsi pair.
> >
> > That probably makes it less practical to replace anything at the top
> > level with a counter array. The key that we pass back is currently the
> > actual source ID, but we don't specify what it is, so we could split it
> > and have it encode a 16bit source ID plus 16 bit GSI. It could also be
> > an idr entry.
> >
> > Michael, would the interface be more acceptable to you if we added
> > separate ioctls to allocate and free some representation of an irq
> > source ID, gsi pair? For instance, an ioctl might return an idr entry
> > for an irq source ID/gsi object which would then be passed as a
> > parameter in struct kvm_irqfd and struct kvm_eoifd so that the object
> > representing the source id/gsi isn't magically freed on it's own. This
> > would also allow us to deassign/close one end and reconfigure it later.
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Alex
>
> It's acceptable to me either way. I was only pointing out that as
> designed, the interface looks simple at first but then you find out some
> subtle limitations which are implementation driven. This gives
> an overall feeling the abstraction is too low level.
>
> If we compare to the existing irqfd, isn't the difference
> simply that irqfd deasserts immediately ATM, while we
> want to delay this until later?
>
> If yes, then along the lines that you proposed, and combining with my
> idea of tracking deasserts, how do you like the following:
>
> /* Keep line asserted until guest has handled the interrupt. */
> #define KVM_IRQFD_FLAG_DEASSERT_ON_ACK (1 << 1)
> /* Notify after line is deasserted. */
> #define KVM_IRQFD_FLAG_DEASSERT_EVENTFD (2 << 1)
>
> struct kvm_irqfd {
> __u32 fd;
> __u32 gsi;
> __u32 flags;
> /* eventfd to notify when line is deasserted */
> __u32 deassert_eventfd;
> __u8 pad[16];
> };
>
> now the only limitation is that KVM_IRQFD_FLAG_DEASSERT_ON_ACK is only
> effective for level interrupts.
>
> Notes about lifetime of objects:
> - closing deassert_eventfd does nothing (we can keep
> reference to it from irqfd so no need for
> complex polling/flushing scheme)
> - closing irqfd or deasserting dis-associates
> deassert_eventfd automatically
> - source id is internal to irqfd and goes away with it
>
> it looks harder to misuse and fits what we want to do nicely,
> and needs less code to implement.
This is effectively what I meant when I suggested we either need to a)
pull eoifd into irqfd or b) implement them as modular components. I
chose to implement b) because I think that non-irqfd related ack
notification to userspace will be useful and a) does not provide that.
So this interface enables exactly the use case for device assignment and
no more. I feel like this is the start of an ioctl that will be quickly
deprecated, but if that's the direction we want to go, I'll write the
code. 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
