[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 Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:57:39AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > 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. I agree with the suggestion to allocate and setup the io_apic_pin_eoi matrix in enable_IO_APIC(). However, I'm not sure I follow your suggestion about the matrix starting as all zeroes being a sane state. I think we need to do the raw RTE reads in enable_IO_APIC() before calling clear_IO_APIC(), otherwise clear_IO_APIC_pin() can call __io_apic_eoi() before any __ioapic_write_entry() has been performed, and hence the state of the RTE.vector field could possibly be out of sync with the initial value in io_apic_pin_eoi, and the EOI not take effect. Thanks, Roger.
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |