|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling
On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 08:00 +0000, Wu, Feng wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx] > > So, I guess, first of all, can you confirm whether or not it's exploding > > in debug builds? > > Does the following information in Config.mk mean it is a debug build? > > # A debug build of Xen and tools? > debug ?= y > debug_symbols ?= $(debug) > I think so. But as I said in my other email, I was wrong, and this is probably not an issue. > > And in either case (just tossing out ideas) would it be > > possible to deal with the "interrupt already raised when blocking" case: > > Thanks for the suggestions below! > :-) > > - later in the context switching function ? > In this case, we might need to set a flag in vmx_pre_ctx_switch_pi() instead > of calling vcpu_unblock() directly, then when it returns to context_switch(), > we can check the flag and don't really block the vCPU. > Yeah, and that would still be rather hard to understand and maintain, IMO. > But I don't have a clear > picture about how to archive this, here are some questions from me: > - When we are in context_switch(), we have done the following changes to > vcpu's state: > * sd->curr is set to next > * vCPU's running state (both prev and next ) is changed by > vcpu_runstate_change() > * next->is_running is set to 1 > * periodic timer for prev is stopped > * periodic timer for next is setup > ...... > > So what point should we perform the action to _unblock_ the vCPU? We > Need to roll back the formal changes to the vCPU's state, right? > Mmm... not really. Not blocking prev does not mean that prev would be kept running on the pCPU, and that's true for your current solution as well! As you say yourself, you're already in the process of switching between prev and next, at a point where it's already a thing that next will be the vCPU that will run. Not blocking means that prev is reinserted to the runqueue, and a new invocation to the scheduler is (potentially) queued as well (via raising SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ, in __runq_tickle()), but it's only when such new scheduling happens that prev will (potentially) be selected to run again. So, no, unless I'm fully missing your point, there wouldn't be no rollback required. However, I still would like the other solution (doing stuff in vcpu_block()) better (see below). > > - with another hook, perhaps in vcpu_block() ? > > We could check this in vcpu_block(), however, the logic here is that before > vCPU is blocked, we need to change the posted-interrupt descriptor, > and during changing it, if 'ON' bit is set, which means VT-d hardware > issues a notification event because interrupts from the assigned devices > is coming, we don't need to block the vCPU and hence no need to update > the PI descriptor in this case. > Yep, I saw that. But could it be possible to do *everything* related to blocking, including the update of the descriptor, in vcpu_block(), if no interrupt have been raised yet at that time? I mean, would you, if updating the descriptor in there, still get the event that allows you to call vcpu_wake(), and hence vmx_vcpu_wake_prepare(), which would undo the blocking, no matter whether that resulted in an actual context switch already or not? I appreciate that this narrows the window for such an event to happen by quite a bit, making the logic itself a little less useful (it makes things more similar to "regular" blocking vs. event delivery, though, AFAICT), but if it's correct, ad if it allows us to save the ugly invocation of vcpu_unblock from context switch context, I'd give it a try. After all, this PI thing requires actions to be taken when a vCPU is scheduled or descheduled because of blocking, unblocking and preemptions, and it would seem natural to me to: - deal with blockings in vcpu_block() - deal with unblockings in vcpu_wake() - deal with preemptions in context_switch() This does not mean being able to consolidate some of the cases (like blockings and preemptions, in the current version of the code) were not a nice thing... But we don't want it at all costs . :-) Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) Attachment:
signature.asc _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |