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

Re: Virtio in Xen on Arm (based on IOREQ concept)

On 21/07/2020 15:52, Oleksandr wrote:
> On 21.07.20 17:32, André Przywara wrote:
>> On 21/07/2020 14:43, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello Andre, Julien
>>> (+ Andre)
>>> Hi Oleksandr,
>>> On 21/07/2020 13:26, Oleksandr wrote:
>>>> On 20.07.20 23:38, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>> For instance, what's your take on notifications with virtio-mmio? How
>>>>> are they modelled today? Are they good enough or do we need MSIs?
>>>> Notifications are sent from device (backend) to the driver (frontend)
>>>> using interrupts. Additional DM function was introduced for that
>>>> purpose xendevicemodel_set_irq_level() which results in
>>>> vgic_inject_irq() call.
>>>> Currently, if device wants to notify a driver it should trigger the
>>>> interrupt by calling that function twice (high level at first, then
>>>> low level).
>>> This doesn't look right to me. Assuming the interrupt is trigger when
>>> the line is high-level, the backend should only issue the hypercall once
>>> to set the level to high. Once the guest has finish to process all the
>>> notifications the backend would then call the hypercall to lower the
>>> interrupt line.
>>> This means the interrupts should keep firing as long as the interrupt
>>> line is high.
>>> It is quite possible that I took some shortcut when implementing the
>>> hypercall, so this should be corrected before anyone start to rely on
>>> it.
>> So I think the key question is: are virtio interrupts level or edge
>> triggered? Both QEMU and kvmtool advertise virtio-mmio interrupts as
>> edge-triggered.
>>  From skimming through the virtio spec I can't find any explicit
>> mentioning of the type of IRQ, but the usage of MSIs indeed hints at
>> using an edge property. Apparently reading the PCI ISR status register
>> clears it, which again sounds like edge. For virtio-mmio the driver
>> needs to explicitly clear the interrupt status register, which again
>> says: edge (as it's not the device clearing the status).
>> So the device should just notify the driver once, which would cause one
>> vgic_inject_irq() call. It would be then up to the driver to clear up
>> that status, by reading PCI ISR status or writing to virtio-mmio's
>> interrupt-acknowledge register.
>> Does that make sense?
> When implementing Xen backend, I didn't have an already working example
> so only guessed. I looked how kvmtool behaved when actually triggering
> the interrupt on Arm [1].
> Taking into the account that Xen PoC on Arm advertises [2] the same irq
> type (TYPE_EDGE_RISING) as kvmtool [3] I decided to follow the model of
> triggering an interrupt. Could you please explain, is this wrong?

Yes, kvmtool does a double call needlessly (on x86, ppc and arm, mips is
I just chased it down in the kernel, a KVM_IRQ_LINE ioctl with level=low
is ignored when the target IRQ is configured as edge (which it is,
because the DT says so), check vgic_validate_injection() in the kernel.

So you should only ever need one call to set the line "high" (actually:
trigger the edge pulse).


> [1]
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/kvmtool.git/tree/arm/gic.c#n418
> [2]
> https://github.com/xen-troops/xen/blob/ioreq_4.14_ml/tools/libxl/libxl_arm.c#L727
> [3]
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/kvmtool.git/tree/virtio/mmio.c#n270



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