Re: [Xen-devel] xen/evtchn and forced threaded irq

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 2/26/19 11:02 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:26:21AM +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 26/02/2019 10:17, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:03:38AM +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > Hi Roger,
> > > >
> > > > On 26/02/2019 09:44, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 09:30:07AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > > > On 26/02/2019 09:14, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 01:55:42PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Oleksandr,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 25/02/2019 13:24, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2/22/19 3:33 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 22/02/2019 12:38, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2/20/19 10:46 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Discussing with my team, a solution that came up would be to
> > > > > > > > > > > > introduce one atomic field per event to record the number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > event received. I will explore that solution tomorrow.
> > > > > > > > > > > How will this help if events have some payload?
> > > > > > > > > > What payload? The event channel does not carry any payload. It only
> > > > > > > > > > notify you that something happen. Then this is up to the user to
> > > > > > > > > > decide what to you with it.
> > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was probably not precise enough. I mean that an event might have
> > > > > > > > > associated payload in the ring buffer, for example [1]. So, counting events
> > > > > > > > > may help somehow, but the ring's data may still be lost
> > > > > > > >    From my understanding of event channels are edge interrupts. By definition,
> > > > > > > IMO event channels are active high level interrupts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's take into account the following situation: you have an event
> > > > > > > channel masked and the event channel pending bit (akin to the line on
> > > > > > > bare metal) goes from low to high (0 -> 1), then you unmask the
> > > > > > > interrupt and you get an event injected. If it was an edge interrupt
> > > > > > > you wont get an event injected after unmasking, because you would
> > > > > > > have lost the edge. I think the problem here is that Linux treats
> > > > > > > event channels as edge interrupts, when they are actually level.
> > > > > > Event channels are edge interrupts.  There are several very subtle bugs
> > > > > > to be had by software which treats them as line interrupts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most critically, if you fail to ack them, rebind them to a new vcpu, and
> > > > > > reenable interrupts, you don't get a new interrupt notification.  This
> > > > > > was the source of a 4 month bug when XenServer was moving from
> > > > > > classic-xen to PVOps where using irqbalance would cause dom0 to
> > > > > > occasionally lose interrupts.
> > > > > I would argue that you need to mask them first, rebind to a new vcpu
> > > > > and unmask, and then you will get an interrupt notification, or this
> > > > > should be fixed in Xen to work as you expect: trigger an interrupt
> > > > > notification when moving an asserted event channel between CPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any document that describes how such non trivial things (like
> > > > > moving between CPUs) work for event/level interrupts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I'm being obtuse, but from the example I gave above it's quite
> > > > > clear to me event channels don't get triggered based on edge changes,
> > > > > but rather on the line level.
> > > > Your example above is not enough to give the semantics of level. You would
> > > > only use the MASK bit if your interrupt handler is threaded to avoid the
> > > > interrupt coming up again.
> > > >
> > > > So if you remove the mask from the equation, then the interrupt flow should be:
> > > >
> > > > 1) handle interrupt
> > > > 2) EOI
> > > This is bogus if you don't mask the interrupt source. You should
> > > instead do
> > >
> > > 1) EOI
> > > 2) Handle interrupt
> > >
> > > And loop over this.
> > So that's not a level semantics. It is a edge one :). In the level case, you
> > would clear the state once you are done with the interrupt.
> >
> > Also, it would be ACK and not EOI.
> For level triggered interrupts you have to somehow signal the device
> to stop asserting the line, which doesn't happen for Xen devices
> because they just signal interrupts to Xen, but don't have a way to
> keep event channels asserted, so I agree that this is different from
> traditional level interrupts because devices using event channels
> don't have a way to keep lines asserted.
>
> I guess the most similar native interrupt is MSI with masking
> support?
I don't know enough about MSI with masking support to be able to draw a 
comparison :).
The flow I have been suggested to re-use in Linux is 
handle_fasteoi_ack_irq. I haven't yet had time to have a try at it.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel