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

Re: [PATCH for-4.14 v2 2/2] x86/passthrough: introduce a flag for GSIs not requiring an EOI or unmask


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:28:00 +0200
  • Authentication-results: esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, paul@xxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:28:29 +0000
  • Ironport-sdr: eQFrrBdh0PW+LPVbxsfcSClVVY4OOjPhWXHCbAhLQ7tiDzmnaxKnyqUBhJ+xuePfPBqRDPvWGW KjGF6DaZzfKkkvdkkwa67yC61itTkslCxiJrZGQBgfKEFUdcX2m33lsiXBAUAuQFQsyjaY4rw9 G3FLvtwEft9eRqQnDMAc+5s6RSvtvUANh7Y2hNzIJ0nH349aEfXkfc3m/RINSUhRLc83VkwkZ7 4rfqzNX7UY2Ld66fsjIdiTYGZRKVeltw0yMYauuVaOBKRrq4osGqyx+EsWSbjPCFkigjFA6TW/ n9o=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:45:51AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.06.2020 10:37, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:27:54AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 10.06.2020 16:29, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>> @@ -920,6 +923,8 @@ static void hvm_dirq_assist(struct domain *d, struct 
> >>> hvm_pirq_dpci *pirq_dpci)
> >>>          if ( pirq_dpci->flags & HVM_IRQ_DPCI_IDENTITY_GSI )
> >>>          {
> >>>              hvm_gsi_assert(d, pirq->pirq);
> >>> +            if ( pirq_dpci->flags & HVM_IRQ_DPCI_NO_EOI )
> >>> +                goto out;
> >>
> >> Immediately ahead of this there's a similar piece of code
> >> dealing with PCI INTx. They're commonly level triggered, but
> >> I don't think there's a strict need for this to be the case.
> >> At least hvm_pci_intx_assert() -> assert_gsi() ->
> >> vioapic_irq_positive_edge() also cover the edge triggered one.
> > 
> > Hm, I'm not sure it's safe to passthrough edge triggered IO-APIC
> > interrupts, as Xen will mark those as 'shared' always, and sharing
> > edge interrupts cannot reliably work. In any case the EOI timer is
> > definitely set for those, and needs to be disabled before exiting
> > hvm_dirq_assist.
> 
> That's the
> 
>                 if ( !is_hardware_domain(d) )
>                     share = BIND_PIRQ__WILL_SHARE;
> 
> in pt_irq_create_bind() aiui? I wonder why we have that ... At a
> guess it's to accommodate pciback in Dom0 also registering a handler.
> But wasn't it XenoLinux'es pciback only that does so, and upstream's
> doesn't?

I'm not that familiar with pciback in Linux. I've taken a look and
AFAICT modern Linux kernels will register a handler for the PCI
interrupts before doing a device reset and when dealing with PV guests
that use the pciif protocol (note that such IRQ is also
unconditionally marked as shared in Linux).

It might be safe for HVM domU passed through interrupts to set the
share bit based on the triggering mode.

Roger.



 


Rackspace

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