[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3] x86/io-apic: fix directed EOI when using AMD-Vi interrupt remapping
On 30.10.2024 11:09, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:41:40AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 29.10.2024 18:48, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 05:43:24PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 29.10.2024 12:03, Roger Pau Monne wrote: >>>>> @@ -273,6 +293,13 @@ void __ioapic_write_entry( >>>>> { >>>>> __io_apic_write(apic, 0x11 + 2 * pin, eu.w2); >>>>> __io_apic_write(apic, 0x10 + 2 * pin, eu.w1); >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * Called in clear_IO_APIC_pin() before io_apic_pin_eoi is >>>>> allocated. >>>>> + * Entry will be updated once the array is allocated and there's >>>>> a >>>>> + * write against the pin. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + if ( io_apic_pin_eoi ) >>>>> + io_apic_pin_eoi[apic][pin] = e.vector; >>>> >>>> The comment here looks a little misleading to me. clear_IO_APIC_pin() calls >>>> here to, in particular, set the mask bit. With the mask bit the vector >>>> isn't >>>> meaningful anyway (and indeed clear_IO_APIC_pin() sets it to zero, at which >>>> point recording IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED might be better than the bogus vector >>>> 0x00). >>> >>> Note that clear_IO_APIC_pin() performs the call to >>> __ioapic_write_entry() with raw == false, at which point >>> __ioapic_write_entry() will call iommu_update_ire_from_apic() if IOMMU >>> IR is enabled. The cached 'vector' value will be the IOMMU entry >>> offset for the AMD-Vi case, as the IOMMU code will perform the call to >>> __ioapic_write_entry() with raw == true. >>> >>> What matters is that the cached value matches what's written in the >>> IO-APIC RTE, and the current logic ensures this. >>> >>> What's the benefit of using IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED if the result is >>> reading the RTE and finding that vector == 0? >> >> It's not specifically the vector == 0 case alone. Shouldn't we leave >> the latched vector alone when writing an RTE with the mask bit set? > > I'm not sure what's the benefit of the extra logic to detect such > cases, just to avoid a write to the io_apic_pin_eoi matrix. Perhaps the largely theoretical concern towards having stale data somewhere. Yet ... >> Any still pending EOI (there should be none aiui) can't possibly >> target the meaningless vector / index in such an RTE. Perhaps it was >> wrong to suggest to overwrite (with IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED) what we >> have on record. >> >> Yet at the same time there ought to be a case where the recorded >> indeed moves back to IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED. > > The only purpose of the io_apic_pin_eoi matrix is to cache what's > currently in the RTE entry 'vector' field. I don't think we should > attempt to add extra logic as to whether the entry is valid, or > masked. Higher level layers should already take care of that. The > only purpose of the logic added in this patch is to ensure the EOI is > performed using what's in the RTE vector field for the requested pin. > Anything else is out of scope IMO. > > Another option, which would allow to make the matrix store uint8_t > elements would be to initialize it at allocation with the RTE vector > fields currently present, IOW: do a raw read of every RTE and set the > fetched vector field in io_apic_pin_eoi. Would that be better to you, > as also removing the need to ever store IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED? ... yes, that may make sense (and eliminate my concern there). I wonder whether the allocation of the array then wouldn't better be moved earlier, to enable_IO_APIC(), such that clear_IO_APIC_pin() already can suitably update it. In fact, since that function writes zero[1], no extra reads would then be needed at all, and the array could simply start out all zeroed. Jan [1] With the exception of RTEs saying SMI, where - for having fully correct data on record - we may then need to update the array slot.
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |