On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 10:42:41AM -0500, Dan Streetman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Boris Ostrovsky
> <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 01/06/2017 08:06 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:28:56PM -0500, Dan Streetman wrote:
> >>> Do not read a pci device's msi message data to see if a pirq was
> >>> previously configured for the device's msi/msix, as the old pirq was
> >>> unmapped and may now be in use by another pci device. The previous
> >>> pirq should never be re-used; instead a new pirq should always be
> >>> allocated from the hypervisor.
> >> Won't this cause a starvation problem? That is we will run out of PIRQs
> >> as we are not reusing them?
> >
> > Don't we free the pirq when we unmap it?
>
> I think this is actually a bit worse than I initially thought. After
> looking a bit closer, and I think there's an asymmetry with pirq
> allocation:
Lets include Stefano,
Thank you for digging in this! This has quite the deja-vu
feeling as I believe I hit this at some point in the past and
posted some possible ways of fixing this. But sadly I can't
find the thread.
>
> tl;dr:
>
> pci_enable_msix_range() -> each MSIX (or MSI) now has a pirq
> allocated, and reserved in the hypervisor
>
> request_irq() -> an event channel is opened for the specific pirq, and
> maps the pirq with the hypervisor
>
> free_irq() -> the event channel is closed, and the pirq is unmapped,
> but that unmap function also frees the pirq! The hypervisor can/will
> give it away to the next call to get_free_pirq. However, the pci
> msi/msix data area still contains the pirq number, and the next call
> to request_irq() will re-use the pirq.
>
> pci_disable_msix() -> this has no effect on the pirq in the hypervisor
> (it's already been freed), and it also doesn't clear anything from the
> msi/msix data area, so the pirq is still cached there.
>
>
> It seems like the hypervisor needs to be fixed to *not* unmap the pirq
> when the event channel is closed - or at least, not to change it to
> IRQ_UNBOUND state? And, the pci_disable_msix call should eventually
> call into something in the Xen guest kernel that actually does the
> pirq unmapping, and clear it from the msi data area (i.e.
> pci_write_msi_msg)
The problem is that Xen changes have sailed a long long time ago.
>
> Alternately, if the hypervisor doesn't change, then the call into the
> hypervisor to actually allocate a pirq needs to move from the
> pci_enable_msix_range() call to the request_irq() call? So that when
> the msi/msix range is enabled, it doesn't actually reserve any pirq's
> for any of the vectors; each request_irq/free_irq pair do the pirq
> allocate-and-map/unmap...
Or a third one: We keep an pirq->device lookup and inhibit free_irq()
from actually calling evtchn_close() until the pci_disable_msix() is done?
>
>
> longer details:
>
> The chain of function calls starts in the initial call to configure
> the msi vectors, which eventually calls __pci_enable_msix_range (or
> msi_) which then eventually reaches xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs(), which
> either tries to re-use any cached pirq in the MSI data area, or (for
> the first time setup) allocates a new pirq from the hypervisor via
> PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq. That pirq is then reserved from the
> hypervisor's perspective, but it's not mapped to anything in the guest
> kernel.
>
> Then, the driver calls request_irq to actually start using the irq,
> which calls __setup_irq to irq_startup to startup_pirq. The
> startup_pirq call actually creates the evtchn and binds it to the
> previously allocated pirq via EVTCHNOP_bind_pirq.
>
> At this point, the pirq is bound to a guest kernel evtchn (and irq)
> and is in use. But then, when the driver doesn't want it anymore, it
> calls free_irq, and that calls irq_shutdown to shutdown_pirq; and that
> function closes the evtchn via EVTCHNOP_close.
>
> Inside the hypervisor, in xen/common/event_channel.c in
> evtchn_close(), if the channel is type ECS_PIRQ (which our pirq
> channel is) then it unmaps the pirq mapping via
> unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq. This unmaps the pirq, but also puts it back
> to state IRQ_UNBOUND, which makes it available for the hypervisor to
> give away to anyone requesting a new pirq!
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > -boris
> >
> >>> The xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs() function currently checks the pci device's
> >>> msi descriptor message data for each msi/msix vector it sets up, and if
> >>> it finds the vector was previously configured with a pirq, and that pirq
> >>> is mapped to an irq, it re-uses the pirq instead of requesting a new pirq
> >>> from the hypervisor. However, that pirq was unmapped when the pci device
> >>> disabled its msi/msix, and it cannot be re-used; it may have been given
> >>> to a different pci device.
> >> Hm, but this implies that we do keep track of it.
> >>
> >>
> >> while (true)
> >> do
> >> rmmod nvme
> >> modprobe nvme
> >> done
> >>
> >> Things go boom without this patch. But with this patch does this
> >> still work? As in we don't run out of PIRQs?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>> This exact situation is happening in a Xen guest where multiple NVMe
> >>> controllers (pci devices) are present. The NVMe driver configures each
> >>> pci device's msi/msix twice; first to configure a single vector (to
> >>> talk to the controller for its configuration info), and then it disables
> >>> that msi/msix and re-configures with all the msi/msix it needs. When
> >>> multiple NVMe controllers are present, this happens concurrently on all
> >>> of them, and in the time between controller A calling pci_disable_msix()
> >>> and then calling pci_enable_msix_range(), controller B enables its msix
> >>> and gets controller A's pirq allocated from the hypervisor. Then when
> >>> controller A re-configures its msix, its first vector tries to re-use
> >>> the same pirq that it had before; but that pirq was allocated to
> >>> controller B, and thus the Xen event channel for controller A's re-used
> >>> pirq fails to map its irq to that pirq; the hypervisor already has the
> >>> pirq mapped elsewhere.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Streetman <dan.streetman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/x86/pci/xen.c | 23 +++++++----------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
> >>> index bedfab9..a00a6c0 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c
> >>> @@ -234,23 +234,14 @@ static int xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type)
> >>> return 1;
> >>>
> >>> for_each_pci_msi_entry(msidesc, dev) {
> >>> - __pci_read_msi_msg(msidesc, &msg);
> >>> - pirq = MSI_ADDR_EXT_DEST_ID(msg.address_hi) |
> >>> - ((msg.address_lo >> MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID_SHIFT) & 0xff);
> >>> - if (msg.data != XEN_PIRQ_MSI_DATA ||
> >>> - xen_irq_from_pirq(pirq) < 0) {
> >>> - pirq = xen_allocate_pirq_msi(dev, msidesc);
> >>> - if (pirq < 0) {
> >>> - irq = -ENODEV;
> >>> - goto error;
> >>> - }
> >>> - xen_msi_compose_msg(dev, pirq, &msg);
> >>> - __pci_write_msi_msg(msidesc, &msg);
> >>> - dev_dbg(&dev->dev, "xen: msi bound to pirq=%d\n", pirq);
> >>> - } else {
> >>> - dev_dbg(&dev->dev,
> >>> - "xen: msi already bound to pirq=%d\n", pirq);
> >>> + pirq = xen_allocate_pirq_msi(dev, msidesc);
> >>> + if (pirq < 0) {
> >>> + irq = -ENODEV;
> >>> + goto error;
> >>> }
> >>> + xen_msi_compose_msg(dev, pirq, &msg);
> >>> + __pci_write_msi_msg(msidesc, &msg);
> >>> + dev_dbg(&dev->dev, "xen: msi bound to pirq=%d\n", pirq);
> >>> irq = xen_bind_pirq_msi_to_irq(dev, msidesc, pirq,
> >>> (type == PCI_CAP_ID_MSI) ? nvec : 1,
> >>> (type == PCI_CAP_ID_MSIX) ?
> >>> --
> >>> 2.9.3
> >>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
