[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Add MSI support to XEN
Just checked this. Linux does the local APIC EOI on ->ack(). eSk [Keir Fraser] > I think Linux EOIs on ->end() not on ->ack(). Which is fine since > Linux doesn't defer or otherwise schedule ISR handlers. > -- Keir > On 28/3/08 11:37, "Espen Skoglund" <espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> That is true. I was quite puzzled with the requirement of the >> callback into Xen myself. In standard Linux MSI interrupts are >> treated as edge triggered and are just acked in the local APIC upon >> delivery. >> >> eSk >> >> >> >> [Keir Fraser] >>> This requires the guest to call back into Xen to signal EOI (as we already >>> do for legacy level-triggered interrupts). We shouldn't really need to do >>> that for MSI and it's rather more expensive than a couple of accesses over >>> the PCI bus! >> >>> It's this callback into Xen, which we do not really understand why it's >>> needed, which I'm railing against. Is there some fundamental aspect of MSI >>> we do not understand, or are we working around one brain-dead or buggy >>> device? >> >>> -- Keir >> >>> On 28/3/08 01:48, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> Not masking each time when interrupt happen, instead, we do that only >>>> when the second interrupt happen while the previous one is still >>>> pending, it should be something like handle_edge_irqs() in upstream >>>> linux. >>>> >>>> -- Yunhong Jiang >>>> >>>> Espen Skoglund <mailto:espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Preventing interrupt storms by masking the interrupt in the MSI/MSI-X >>>>> capabilty structure or MSI-X table within the interrupt handler is >>>>> insane. It requires accesses over the PCI/PCIe bus and is clearly >>>>> something you want to avoid on the fast path. >>>>> >>>>> eSk >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [Haitao Shan] >>>>>> There are no much changes made compared with the original >>>> patches. >>>>>> But there do have some issues that we need your kind comments. >>>>> 1> ACK-NEW method is necessary to avoid IRQ storm. But it causes >>>> the >>>>>> deadlock. During my tests, I do find there can be deadlock >>>> with >>>>>> patches applied. When assigned a NIC device to HVM domain, the >>>> scenario >>>>>> is: Dom0 is waiting to IDE interrupt (vector 0x21); HVM domain is >>>> waiting >>>>>> for qemu's IDE emulation and thus blocked; NIC interrupt (MSI vector >>>> 0x31) >>>>>> is waiting for injection to HVM domain since it is blocked now; IDE >>>>>> interrupt is waiting for NIC interrupt since NIC interrupt is of high >>>>>> priority but not ACKed by XEN now. When IDE interrupt and NIC >>>> interrupt >>>>>> are delivered to the same CPU, and when guest OS is Vista, the >>>>>> phenomenon is easy to be observed. >>>>> 2> Without ACK-NEW, some naughty NIC devices as we observed will >>>>>> bring IRQ storms. For this phenomenon, I think Yunhong can comment >>>> more. >>>>>> Basically, writing EOI without mask the source of MSI will bring IRQ >>>>>> storm. Although the reason is under investigation, XEN should anyhow >>>>>> handle such bogous device, right? >>>>> 3> Using ACK-OLD and masking the MSI when writing EOI can be >>>>>> solution. However, XEN does not own PCI configuration spaces. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Xen-devel mailing list >>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |