[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 But I do hold the atypical belief that an out of date pointer to context is 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 |