[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 4/4] xen/pvhvm: Make MSI IRQs work after kexec
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:01:55AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:40:40PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: >> >> When kexec was peformed MSI IRQs for passthrough-ed devices were already >> >> mapped and we see non-zero pirq extracted from MSI msg. >> >> xen_irq_from_pirq() >> >> fails as we have no IRQ mapping information for that. Requesting for new >> >> mapping with __write_msi_msg() does not result in MSI IRQ being remapped >> >> so >> >> we don't recieve these IRQs. >> > >> > receive >> > >> >> Thanks for your comments! > > Thank you for quick turnaround with the answers! >> >> > How come '__write_msi_msg' does not result in new MSI IRQs? >> > >> >> Actually that was the hidden question in my RFC :-) >> >> Let me describe what I see. When normal boot is performed we have the >> following in xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs(): >> >> __read_msi_msg() >> pirq -> 0 >> >> then we allocate new pirq with >> pirq = xen_allocate_pirq_msi() >> pirq -> 54 >> >> and we have the following mapping: >> xen: msi --> pirq=54 --> irq=72 >> >> in 'xl debug-keys i': >> (XEN) IRQ: 29 affinity:04 vec:b9 type=PCI-MSI status=00000030 >> in-flight=0 domain-list=7: 54(----), >> >> After kexec we see the following: >> __read_msi_msg() >> pirq -> 54 >> >> but as xen_irq_from_pirq() fails we follow the same path allocating new pirq: >> pirq = xen_allocate_pirq_msi() >> pirq -> 55 >> >> and we have the following mapping: >> xen: msi --> pirq=55 --> irq=75 >> >> However (afaict) mapping in xen wasn't updated: >> >> in 'xl debug-keys i': >> (XEN) IRQ: 29 affinity:02 vec:b9 type=PCI-MSI status=00000030 >> in-flight=0 domain-list=7: 54(--M-), > > I am wondering if that is related to in QEMU traditional: > > qemu-xen-trad: free all the pirqs for msi/msix when driver unloads > > (which in the upstream QEMU is 1d4fd4f0e2fc5dcae0c60e00cc9af95f52988050) > > If you have that patch in, is the PIRQ value correctly updated? > Thanks, that really works! I tested both kexec -e / kdump cases. I'm wondering if we although need my commit to workaround non-fixed qemus? >> >> > Is it fair to state that your code ends up reading the MSI IRQ (PIRQ) >> > from the device and updating the internal PIRQ<->IRQ code to match >> > with the reality? >> > >> >> Yea, 'always trust the device'. >> >> >> >> >> RFC: I wasn't able to understand why commit af42b8d1 which introduced >> >> xen_irq_from_pirq() check in xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs() is checking that >> >> instead >> >> of checking pirq > 0 as if the mapping was already done (and we have >> >> pirq>0 here) >> >> we don't need to request for a new pirq. We're loosing existing PIRQ and >> >> I'm also >> >> not sure when __write_msi_msg() with new PIRQ will result in new mapping. >> > >> > We don't request a new pirq. We end up returning before we call >> > xen_allocate_pirq_msi. >> > At least that is how the commit you mentioned worked. >> > >> >> I meant to say that in case we have pirq > 0 from __read_msi_msg() but >> xen_irq_from_pirq(pirq) fails (kexec-only case?) we always do >> xen_allocate_pirq_msi() which brings us new pirq. >> >> > In regards to why using 'xen_irq_from_pirq' instead of just checking the >> > PIRQ - is >> > that we might be called twice by a buggy driver. As such we want to check >> > our PIRQ<->IRQ to figure this out. >> >> But if we're called twice we'll see the same pirq, right? Or there are > > Good point. >> some cases when we see 'crap' instead of pirq here? > > For PCI passthrough devices they will be zero until they are enabled. > But I am not sure about the emulated devices, such as e1000 or such, which > would also go through this path (I think - do we have MSI devices that > we emulate in QEMU?) AFAICT emulated e1000 doesn't use MSI (at least with qemu-tradidtional) and with my patch series it works after kexec. > >> >> I think it would be nice to use the same pirq after kexec instead of >> allocating a new one even in case we can make remapping work. > > I concur. > > Stefano, do you recall why you used xen_irq_from_pirq instead of just > trusting the 'pirq' value? Was it to workaround broken QEMU? > >> >> Thanks for your comments again! >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> arch/x86/pci/xen.c | 3 +-- >> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c >> >> index 905956f..685e8f1 100644 >> >> --- a/arch/x86/pci/xen.c >> >> +++ b/arch/x86/pci/xen.c >> >> @@ -231,8 +231,7 @@ static int xen_hvm_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev >> >> *dev, int nvec, int type) >> >> __read_msi_msg(msidesc, &msg); >> >> pirq = MSI_ADDR_EXT_DEST_ID(msg.address_hi) | >> >> ((msg.address_lo >> MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID_SHIFT) & 0xff); >> >> - if (msg.data != XEN_PIRQ_MSI_DATA || >> >> - xen_irq_from_pirq(pirq) < 0) { >> >> + if (msg.data != XEN_PIRQ_MSI_DATA || pirq <= 0) { >> >> pirq = xen_allocate_pirq_msi(dev, msidesc); >> >> if (pirq < 0) { >> >> irq = -ENODEV; >> >> -- >> >> 1.9.3 >> >> >> >> -- >> Vitaly -- Vitaly _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |