[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: reuse the same pirq allocated when driver load first time
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:50:09PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:51:02PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > > Looking at the hypervisor code I couldn't see anything obviously > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > I think the culprit is "physdev_unmap_pirq": > > > > > > > > if ( is_hvm_domain(d) ) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > spin_lock(&d->event_lock); > > > > > > > > gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,"d%d, pirq: %d is %x %s, irq: %d\n", > > > > > > > > d->domain_id, pirq, domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, pirq), > > > > > > > > domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, pirq) == IRQ_UNBOUND ? "unbound" : > > > > "", > > > > domain_pirq_to_irq(d, pirq)); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if ( domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, pirq) != IRQ_UNBOUND ) > > > > > > > > ret = unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq(d, pirq); > > > > > > > > spin_unlock(&d->event_lock); > > > > > > > > if ( domid == DOMID_SELF || ret ) > > > > > > > > goto free_domain; > > > > > > > > > > > > It always tells me unbound: > > > > > > > > (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 54 is ffffffff > > > > (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56 > > > > (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 53 is ffffffff > > > > (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56 > > > > (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 52 is ffffffff > > > > (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56 > > > > (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 51 is ffffffff > > > > (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56 > > > > (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 50 is ffffffff > > > > (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56 > > > > (a bit older debug code, so the 'unbound' does not show up here). > > > > > > > > Which means that the call to unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq does not happen. > > > > The checks in unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq also look to be depend > > > > on the code being IRQ_UNBOUND. > > > > > > > > In other words, all of that code looks to only clear things when > > > > they are !IRQ_UNBOUND. > > > > > > > > But the other logic (IRQ_UNBOUND) looks to be missing a removal > > > > in the radix tree: > > > > > > > > if ( emuirq != IRQ_PT ) > > > > > > > > radix_tree_delete(&d->arch.hvm_domain.emuirq_pirq, emuirq); > > > > > > > > > > > > And I think that is what is causing the leak - the radix tree > > > > needs to be pruned? Or perhaps the allocate_pirq should check > > > > the radix tree for IRQ_UNBOUND ones and re-use them? > > > > > > I think that you are looking in the wrong place. > > > The issue is that QEMU doesn't call pt_msi_disable in > > > pt_msgctrl_reg_write if (!val & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE). > > > > In my test-case I am not even calling QEMU. I am just doing two hypercalls > > hypercall - get_free_pirq and unmap. > > > > > > The code above is correct as is because it is trying to handle emulated > > > IRQs and MSIs, not real passthrough MSIs. They latter are not added to > > > that radix tree, see physdev_hvm_map_pirq and physdev_map_pirq. > > > > The bug is in the hypervisor. This little patch solves the test-case > > (I hadn't tried to do the PCI passthrough yet) > > > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c > > index b0b0c65..b78717a 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c > > @@ -1851,8 +1851,8 @@ static int pirq_guest_force_unbind(struct domain *d, > > struct pirq *pirq) > > static inline bool_t is_free_pirq(const struct domain *d, > > const struct pirq *pirq) > > { > > - return !pirq || (!pirq->arch.irq && (!is_hvm_domain(d) || > > - pirq->arch.hvm.emuirq == IRQ_UNBOUND)); > > + return !pirq || ((pirq->arch.irq == 0 || (pirq->arch.irq == > > PIRQ_ALLOCATED)) && > > + (!is_hvm_domain(d) || pirq->arch.hvm.emuirq == IRQ_UNBOUND)); > > } > > > > int get_free_pirq(struct domain *d, int type) To be fair, this diff is just to demonstrate that the pirq->arch.irq is the one that seems to gate things. I am not suggesting that this is the final patch - just the 'aha, this is what is happening!'. > > > > > > The reason is that pirq->arch.irq in PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq is set to > > from the value of zero to -1 (PIRQ_ALLOCATED). Then in map_domain_pirq > > we check it first: > > > > 904 old_irq = domain_pirq_to_irq(d, pirq); > > .. snip.. > > 1907 if ( (old_irq > 0 && (old_irq != irq) ) || > > > > > > and since the 'old_irq' is -1 (or zero), and the irq passed in > > is different, then all checks pass and the value is over-written: > > > > 1988 set_domain_irq_pirq(d, irq, info); > > > > > > And that is it. > > > We have to be careful about this: the point of PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq is > that Linux can know for sure the pirq that is going to be used to map the > MSI by QEMU. If you modify is_free_pirq that way, suddenly the pirq > could be allocated for something else after Linux called > PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq and before QEMU called xc_physdev_map_pirq_msi. Yes. And I think the 'is_free_pirq' modification above is incorrect. I think the fix should be in the unmap_pirq code (hypervisor) to check if the arch.irq is either zero or PIRQ_ALLOCATED. Right now it only checks for zero. Then as you say there is also xc_physdev_map_pirq_msi, but the call chain looks to be INTx-MSIx. The pt_msi_update is the call that is used when guest writes the PIRQ (xc_domain_update_msi_irq -> XEN_DOMCTL_bind_pt_irq) And that looks to be it. The pt_msi_update can be called multiple times if the guest decides to use a different PIRQ. > > Right now the unmap is supposed to be done by QEMU, not Linux. So I > think that it is "normal" (although counterintuitive) that your little > test works that way. Yes, the test-case is flawed. > > pirq allocated via PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq should be passed to QEMU, > mapped by QEMU, unmapped by QEMU and eventually freed by QEMU. > > This is not the bestest interface ever written of course but that's how > it works now. That is kindly said :-) _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |