|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3] xen/x86: On x2APIC mode, derive LDR from APIC ID
On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 12:21:36PM +0000, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 10:03:12AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 04:08:17PM +0000, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> > > +static uint32_t x2apic_ldr_from_id(uint32_t id)
> > > +{
> > > + return ((id & ~0xf) << 12) | (1 << (id & 0xf));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static void set_x2apic_id(struct vlapic *vlapic)
> > > {
> > > - u32 id = vlapic_vcpu(vlapic)->vcpu_id;
> > > - u32 ldr = ((id & ~0xf) << 12) | (1 << (id & 0xf));
> > > + uint32_t vcpu_id = vlapic_vcpu(vlapic)->vcpu_id;
> > > + uint32_t apic_id = vcpu_id * 2;
> > > + uint32_t apic_ldr = x2apic_ldr_from_id(apic_id);
> > > +
> > > + /* This is a migration bug workaround. See wall of text in
> > > lapic_load_fixup() */
> >
> > Line length > 80 cols.
> >
> > I try to avoid referencing function names in comments, as they tend to
> > get out of sync without noticing. It's much easier to use cscope to
> > grep for x2apic_ldr_bug_with_vcpu_id and find the comment itself.
> In my experience that's less of a problem than it's usually made out to be,
> and helps new readers know about the real context something is in the place
> it is.
>
> But I do hold the atypical belief that an out of date pointer to context is
> preferrable to no context.
It's a question of taste TBH, I'm certainly not going to insist.
Since you have to wrap the line to fit in 80 cols anyway, I think I
would rather write: "This is a workaround for migrated domains. ...".
Current text reads to me as it's a migration bug, but that's not the
case, the bug is in the previous Xen versions. I'm not a native
speaker anyway, so maybe it's just me reading it wrong.
> >
> > > + if ( vlapic_domain(vlapic)->arch.hvm.x2apic_ldr_bug_with_vcpu_id )
> > > + apic_ldr = x2apic_ldr_from_id(vcpu_id);
> > >
> > > - vlapic_set_reg(vlapic, APIC_ID, id * 2);
> > > - vlapic_set_reg(vlapic, APIC_LDR, ldr);
> > > + vlapic_set_reg(vlapic, APIC_ID, apic_id);
> > > + vlapic_set_reg(vlapic, APIC_LDR, apic_ldr);
> > > }
> > >
> > > int guest_wrmsr_apic_base(struct vcpu *v, uint64_t val)
> > > @@ -1498,27 +1508,35 @@ static int cf_check lapic_save_regs(struct vcpu
> > > *v, hvm_domain_context_t *h)
> > > */
> > > static void lapic_load_fixup(struct vlapic *vlapic)
> > > {
> > > - uint32_t id = vlapic->loaded.id;
> > > + /* Skip fixups on xAPIC mode, or if the x2APIC LDR is already
> > > correct */
> > > + if ( !vlapic_x2apic_mode(vlapic) ||
> > > + (vlapic->loaded.ldr == x2apic_ldr_from_id(vlapic->loaded.id)) )
> > > + return;
> > >
> > > - if ( vlapic_x2apic_mode(vlapic) && id && vlapic->loaded.ldr == 1 )
> > > - {
> > > + if ( vlapic->loaded.ldr == 1 )
> > > + /*
> > > + * Xen <= 4.4 had a bug by which all the APICs configured in
> > > x2APIC
> > > + * mode got LDR = 1. We can't leave it as-is because it assigned
> > > the
> > > + * same LDR to every CPU. We'll fix fix the bug now and assign an
> > > + * LDR value consistent with the APIC ID.
> > > + */
> > > + set_x2apic_id(vlapic);
> > > + else if ( vlapic->loaded.ldr ==
> > > + x2apic_ldr_from_id(vlapic_vcpu(vlapic)->vcpu_id) )
> > > /*
> > > - * This is optional: ID != 0 contradicts LDR == 1. It's being
> > > added
> > > - * to aid in eventual debugging of issues arising from the fixup
> > > done
> > > - * here, but can be dropped as soon as it is found to conflict
> > > with
> > > - * other (future) changes.
> > > + * This is a migration from a broken Xen between 4.4 and 4.18 and
> > > + * we must _PRESERVE_ LDRs so new vCPUs use consistent
> > > derivations.
> >
> > Not sure if we should try to avoid mentioning specific versions in the
> > comments, as I this fix will be backported to stable branches (I hope),
> > and hence those will no longer be affected.
> Hence the "broken Xen" part of the paragraphs. Not every 4.18 will have the
> problem, but it shouldn't be seen in 4.19 onwards. I think there's value in
> stating the versions that "may" exhibit problems, but this is all
> subjective
FE.
> >
> > > + * This is so existing running guests that may have already read
> > > + * the LDR at the source host aren't surprised when IPIs stop
> > > + * working as they did at the other end. To address this, we set
> > > + * this domain boolean so future CPU hotplugs derive an LDR
> > > + * consistent with the older Xen's broken idea of consistency.
> >
> > I think this is possibly too verbose, I would be fine with just the
> > first sentence TBH. If we want the full comment however, the wording
> > should be slightly addressed: it's not just IPIs that would possibly
> > fail to be delivered, but any interrupt attempting to target the APIC
> > using the previous LDR addressing (either an IPI or an external
> > interrupt).
> I can s/IPIs/targetted interrupts/ and remove the second sentence.
I would just use interrupts FWIW.
> >
> > > */
> > > - if ( GET_xAPIC_ID(id) != vlapic_vcpu(vlapic)->vcpu_id * 2 ||
> > > - id != SET_xAPIC_ID(GET_xAPIC_ID(id)) )
> > > - printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING "%pv: bogus APIC ID %#x loaded\n",
> > > - vlapic_vcpu(vlapic), id);
> > > - set_x2apic_id(vlapic);
> > > - }
> > > - else /* Undo an eventual earlier fixup. */
> > > - {
> > > - vlapic_set_reg(vlapic, APIC_ID, id);
> > > - vlapic_set_reg(vlapic, APIC_LDR, vlapic->loaded.ldr);
> > > - }
> > > + vlapic_domain(vlapic)->arch.hvm.x2apic_ldr_bug_with_vcpu_id =
> > > true;
> > > + else
> > > + printk(XENLOG_G_WARNING
> > > + "%pv: bogus x2APIC loaded id=%#x ldr=%#x\n",
> > > + vlapic_vcpu(vlapic), vlapic->loaded.id,
> > > vlapic->loaded.ldr);
> >
> > Could you write the expected values while at it:
> >
> > "%pv: bogus x2APIC loaded id=%#x ldr=%#x (expected id=%#x ldr=%#x)\n"
> x2APIC ID is current strictly related to the vcpu ID, but it won't be after
> I'm done with topology. I can print the expected LDR though.
Oh, I see. Just printing the expected LDR then would be fine.
Thanks, Roger.
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |