[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 104131: regressions - FAIL

On February 08, 2017 4:22 PM, Chao Gao wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 10:15:28AM +0000, Xuquan (Quan Xu) wrote:
>>On February 08, 2017 4:52 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 08.02.17 at 09:27, <xuquan8@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Assumed vCPU is in guest_mode..
>>>> When apicv is enabled, hypervisor calls vmx_deliver_posted_intr(),
>>>> then
>>>> __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt() to deliver interrupt, but no vmexit
>>>> (also no
>>>> vcpu_kick() )..
>>>> In __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(), it is __conditional__ to
>>>> deliver posted interrupt. if posted interrupt is not delivered, the
>>>> posted interrupt is pending until next VM entry -- by PIR to vIRR..
>>>> one condition is :
>>>> In __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(),  ' if (
>>>> !test_and_set_bit(VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ, &softirq_pending(cpu))' ..
>>>> Specifically, we did verify it by RES interrupt, which is used for
>>>> smp_reschedule_interrupt..
>>>> We even cost more time to deliver RES interrupt than no-apicv in
>>>> If RES interrupt (no. 1) is delivered by posted way (the vcpu is
>>>> still guest_mode).. when tries to deliver next-coming RES interrupt
>>>> (no. 2) by posted way, The next-coming RES interrupt (no. 2) is not
>>>> delivered, as we set the VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ bit when we deliver RES
>interrupt (no.
>>>> 1)..
>>>> Then the next-coming RES interrupt (no. 2) is pending until next VM
>>>> entry -- by PIR to vIRR..
>>>> We can fix it as below(I don't think this is a best one, it is
>>>> better to set the VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ bit, but not test it):
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>> @@ -1846,7 +1846,7 @@ static void
>>>__vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct vcpu *v)
>>>>      {
>>>>          unsigned int cpu = v->processor;
>>>> -        if ( !test_and_set_bit(VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ,
>>>> +        if ( !test_bit(VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ, &softirq_pending(cpu))
>>>>               && (cpu != smp_processor_id()) )
>>>>              send_IPI_mask(cpumask_of(cpu), posted_intr_vector);
>>>>      }
>>>While I don't think I fully understand your description,
>>>the line you change
>>>here has always been puzzling me: If we were to raise a softirq here,
>>>we ought to call cpu_raise_softirq() instead of partly open coding what it
>>>So I think not marking that softirq pending (but doing this
>>>incompletely) is a valid change in any case.
>>As comments in pi_notification_interrupt()  --
>>xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c ((((
>>     *
>>     * we need to set VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ for the current cpu, just like
>>     * __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(). So the pending interrupt in
>PIRR will
>>     * be synced to vIRR before VM-Exit in time.
>>     *
>>I think setting VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ bit -- the pending interrupt in PIRR will
>be synced to vIRR before VM-Exit in time.
>>That's also why i said it is better to set the VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ bit, but
>not test it..
>I think there is a typo. It should be "before VM-Entry in time". It set
>VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ bit only to jump to vmx_do_vmentry again instead of
>entering guest directly. Jumping to vmx_do_vmentry again can re-sync the
>PIR to vIRR in vmx_intr_assist(). 

impressive analysis..
chao, could you show the related code?


>In root-mode, cpu treat the pi notification
>interrupt as normal interrupt, so cpu will run the interrupt handler
>pi_notification_interrupt() instead of syncing PIR to vIRR automatically.
>Receiving a pi notificatio interrupt means some interrupts have been
>posted in PIR. Setting that bit is to deliver these new arrival interrupts
>before this VM-entry.

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.