On 24/04/17 19:59, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:46:43PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 24/04/17 15:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> In the next changes, we track when the interrupts occur in order to
>>> statistically compute when is supposed to happen the next interrupt.
>>>
>>> In all the interruptions, it does not make sense to store the timer interrupt
>>> occurences and try to predict the next interrupt as when know the expiration
>>> time.
>>>
>>> The request_irq() has a irq flags parameter and the timer drivers use it to
>>> pass the IRQF_TIMER flag, letting us know the interrupt is coming from a timer.
>>> Based on this flag, we can discard these interrupts when tracking them.
>>>
>>> But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying
>>> if the interrupt type is a timer.
>>>
>>> Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. The
>>> request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to
>>> request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter.
>>>
>>> Change the timers using request_percpu_irq() to use request_percpu_irq_flags()
>>> instead with the IRQF_TIMER flag set.
>>>
>>> For now, in order to prevent a misusage of this parameter, only the IRQF_TIMER
>>> flag (or zero) is a valid parameter to be passed to the
>>> request_percpu_irq_flags() function.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>>> index 35d7100..602e0a8 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>>> @@ -523,8 +523,9 @@ int kvm_timer_hyp_init(void)
>>> host_vtimer_irq_flags = IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - err = request_percpu_irq(host_vtimer_irq, kvm_arch_timer_handler,
>>> - "kvm guest timer", kvm_get_running_vcpus());
>>> + err = request_percpu_irq_flags(host_vtimer_irq, kvm_arch_timer_handler,
>>> + IRQF_TIMER, "kvm guest timer",
>>> + kvm_get_running_vcpus());
>>> if (err) {
>>> kvm_err("kvm_arch_timer: can't request interrupt %d (%d)\n",
>>> host_vtimer_irq, err);
>>>
>>
>> How is that useful? This timer is controlled by the guest OS, and not
>> the host kernel. Can you explain how you intend to make use of that
>> information in this case?
>
> Isn't it a source of interruption on the host kernel?
Only to cause an exit of the VM, and not under the control of the host.
This isn't triggering any timer related action on the host code either.
Your patch series seems to assume some kind of predictability of the
timer interrupt, which can make sense on the host. Here, this interrupt
is shared among *all* guests running on this system.
Maybe you could explain why you think this interrupt is relevant to what
you're trying to achieve?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
