Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/22/2015 03:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 22.09.15 at 15:40, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:00 PM
>>> To: Wu, Feng
>>> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Dario Faggioli; George Dunlap; George Dunlap; Tian, 
>> Kevin;
>>> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir Fraser
>>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core 
>>> logic
>>> handling
>>>
>>>>>> On 22.09.15 at 09:19, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> However, I do find some issues with my proposal above, see below:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Set _VPF_blocked
>>>> 2. ret = arch_block()
>>>> 3. if ( ret || local_events_need_delivery() )
>>>>    clear_bit(_VPF_blocked, &v->pause_flags);
>>>>
>>>> After step #2, if ret == false, that means, we successfully changed the PI
>>>> descriptor in arch_block(), if local_events_need_delivery() returns true,
>>>> _VPF_blocked is cleared. After that, external interrupt come in, hence
>>>> pi_wakeup_interrupt() --> vcpu_unblock(), but _VPF_blocked is cleared,
>>>> so vcpu_unblock() does nothing, so the vCPU's PI state is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> One possible solution for it is:
>>>> - Disable the interrupts before the check in step #3 above
>>>> - if local_events_need_delivery() returns true, undo all the operations
>>>>  done in arch_block()
>>>> - Enable interrupts after _VPF_blocked gets cleared.
>>>
>>> Couldn't this be taken care of by, if necessary, adjusting PI state
>>> in vmx_do_resume()?
>>
>> What do you mean here? Could you please elaborate? Thanks!
> 
> From the discussion so far I understand that all you're after is that
> the PI descriptor is correct for the period of time while the guest
> vCPU is actually executing in guest context. If that's a correct
> understanding of mine, then setting the vector and flags back to
> what's needed while the guest is running would be sufficient to be
> done right before entering the guest, i.e. in vmx_do_resume().

Along those lines, is setting the SN and NDST relatively expensive?

If they are, then of course switching them in __context_switch() makes
sense.

But if setting them is fairly cheap, then we could just clear SN on
every vmexit, and set SN and NDST on every vmentry, couldn't we?  Then
we wouldn't need hooks on the context switch path at all (which are only
there to catch running -> runnable and runnable -> running) -- we could
just have the block/unblock hooks (to change NV and add / remove things
from the list).

Setting NDST on vmentry also has the advantage of being more robust --
you don't have to carefully think about cpu migration and all that; you
simply set it right when you're about to actually use it.

Looking at your comment in pi_notification_interrupt() -- I take it that
"pending interrupt in PIRR will be synced to vIRR" somewhere in the call
to vmx_intr_assist()?  So if we were to set NDST and enable SN before
that call, we should be able to set VCPU_KICK if we get an interrupt
between vmx_intr_assist() and the actual vmentry as necessary.

 -George


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel