[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] nvmx: fix handling of interrupts
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 03:34:13AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 6:19 PM > > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 04:15:04AM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > From: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 6:39 PM > > > > > > > > When doing a virtual vmexit (ie: a vmexit handled by the L1 VMM) > > > > interrupts shouldn't be injected using the virtual interrupt delivery > > > > mechanism, and instead should be signaled in the vmcs using the exit > > > > reason and the interruption-information field if the "Acknowledge > > > > interrupt on exit" vmexit control is set. > > > > > > > > Remove the nvmx_update_apicv helper: it's bogus to attempt to inject > > > > interrupts on virtual vmexit using the virtual interrupt delivery > > > > assistance, and it's also bogus to ack interrupts without checking if > > > > the vmexit "Acknowledge interrupt on exit" vmexit control is set. > > > > nvmx_intr_intercept already handles interrupts correctly on virtual > > > > vmexit. > > > > > > > > Note that this fixes the usage of x2APIC by the L1 VMM, at least when > > > > the L1 VMM is Xen. > > > > > > while this fix makes sense to me, can you also test other L1 VMMs, > > > so we don't overlook some other intentions covered or hidden by > > > removed logic? > > > > I could test other hypervisors, but do we really expect anything > > that's not Xen on Xen to work? > > > > I'm asking because that's the only combination that's actually tested > > by osstest. > > > > Thanks, Roger. > > If others are OK with your assumption, then it's fine. I didn't tightly > follow the nested virtualization requirements in Xen. I can try KVM or bhyve on top of Xen, but I'm not sure whether anyone has actually tested this, so I could be triggering other bugs in the nested code. > On the other hand, I think this patch needs a revision. It is not bogus > to use virtual interrupt delivery on virtual VMexit, if "Ack interrupt > on exit" is off. In such case, the delivery doesn't happen until L1 > hypervisor enables interrupt to clear interrupt window. Then it does > save one exit. The only bogus point is that nvmx_udpate_apicv doesn't > check "Ack interrupt on exit". So I prefer to add such check there > instead of completely removing this optimization. Right, if "Ack interrupt on exit" is off the interrupt will trigger a vmexit, but it won't be acked and the vmexit interrupt information should have bit 31 set to 0, which I think we don't set correctly. The Intel SDM states: "For other VM exits (including those due to external interrupts when the “acknowledge interrupt on exit” VM-exit control is 0), the field is marked invalid (by clearing bit 31) and the remainder of the field is undefined." AFAICT sync_exception_state also needs to check if VM_EXIT_CONTROLS has VM_EXIT_ACK_INTR_ON_EXIT set, and only set VM_EXIT_INTR_INFO in that case, do you agree? Thanks, Roger. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |