[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] PVH Dom0 Intel IOMMU issues
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:49:45AM +0800, Chao Gao wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 09:38:54AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 09:03:12AM +0800, Chao Gao wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 08:47:48AM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >> >On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 07:32:45AM +0800, Chao Gao wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 04:34:41PM +0100, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >> >> >Hello, > >> >> > > >> >> >Although PVHv2 Dom0 is not yet finished, I've been trying the current > >> >> >code on > >> >> >different hardware, and found that with pre-Haswell Intel hardware > >> >> >PVHv2 Dom0 > >> >> >completely freezes the box when calling iommu_hwdom_init in > >> >> >dom0_construct_pvh. > >> >> >OTOH the same doesn't happen when using a newer CPU (ie: haswell or > >> >> >newer). > >> >> > > >> >> >I'm not able to debug that in any meaningful way because the box seems > >> >> >to lock > >> >> >up completely, even the watchdog NMI stops working. Here is the boot > >> >> >log, up to > >> >> >the point where it freezes: > >> >> > >> >> I try "dom0=pvh" with my skylake. An assertion failed. Is it a software > >> >> bug? > >> >> > > > >It seems like we are not properly adding/accounting the vIO APICs, but I > >cannot > >really see how. I have another patch for you to try below. > > > >Thanks, Roger. > > > >---8<--- > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c > >index 527ac2aadd..40075e2756 100644 > >--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c > >+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c > >@@ -610,11 +610,15 @@ int vioapic_init(struct domain *d) > > xzalloc_array(struct hvm_vioapic *, nr_vioapics)) == NULL) ) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > >+ printk("Adding %u vIO APICs\n", nr_vioapics); > >+ > > for ( i = 0; i < nr_vioapics; i++ ) > > { > > unsigned int nr_pins = is_hardware_domain(d) ? nr_ioapic_entries[i] > > : > > ARRAY_SIZE(domain_vioapic(d, 0)->domU.redirtbl); > > > >+ printk("vIO APIC %u has %u pins\n", i, nr_pins); > >+ > > if ( (domain_vioapic(d, i) = > > xmalloc_bytes(hvm_vioapic_size(nr_pins))) == NULL ) > > { > >@@ -623,8 +627,12 @@ int vioapic_init(struct domain *d) > > } > > domain_vioapic(d, i)->nr_pins = nr_pins; > > nr_gsis += nr_pins; > >+ printk("nr_gsis: %u\n", nr_gsis); > > } > > > >+ printk("domain nr_gsis: %u vioapic gsis: %u nr_irqs_gsi: %u > >highest_gsi: %u\n", > >+ hvm_domain_irq(d)->nr_gsis, nr_gsis, nr_irqs_gsi, highest_gsi()); > >+ > > ASSERT(hvm_domain_irq(d)->nr_gsis == nr_gsis); > > > > d->arch.hvm_domain.nr_vioapics = nr_vioapics; > > > > Please Cc or To me. Is there some holes in all physical IOAPICs gsi ranges? That's weird, my MUA (Mutt) seems to automatically remove your address from the "To:" field. I have no idea why it does that. So yes, your box has as GSI gap which is not handled by any IO APIC. TBH, I didn't even knew that was possible. In any case, patch below should solve it. ---8<--- commit f52d05fca03440d771eb56077c9d60bb630eb423 diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c index 5157db7a4e..ec87a97651 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vioapic.c @@ -64,37 +64,23 @@ static struct hvm_vioapic *addr_vioapic(const struct domain *d, struct hvm_vioapic *gsi_vioapic(const struct domain *d, unsigned int gsi, unsigned int *pin) { - unsigned int i, base_gsi = 0; + unsigned int i; for ( i = 0; i < d->arch.hvm_domain.nr_vioapics; i++ ) { struct hvm_vioapic *vioapic = domain_vioapic(d, i); - if ( gsi >= base_gsi && gsi < base_gsi + vioapic->nr_pins ) + if ( gsi >= vioapic->base_gsi && + gsi < vioapic->base_gsi + vioapic->nr_pins ) { - *pin = gsi - base_gsi; + *pin = gsi - vioapic->base_gsi; return vioapic; } - - base_gsi += vioapic->nr_pins; } return NULL; } -static unsigned int base_gsi(const struct domain *d, - const struct hvm_vioapic *vioapic) -{ - unsigned int nr_vioapics = d->arch.hvm_domain.nr_vioapics; - unsigned int base_gsi = 0, i = 0; - const struct hvm_vioapic *tmp; - - while ( i < nr_vioapics && (tmp = domain_vioapic(d, i++)) != vioapic ) - base_gsi += tmp->nr_pins; - - return base_gsi; -} - static uint32_t vioapic_read_indirect(const struct hvm_vioapic *vioapic) { uint32_t result = 0; @@ -180,7 +166,7 @@ static void vioapic_write_redirent( struct hvm_irq *hvm_irq = hvm_domain_irq(d); union vioapic_redir_entry *pent, ent; int unmasked = 0; - unsigned int gsi = base_gsi(d, vioapic) + idx; + unsigned int gsi = vioapic->base_gsi + idx; spin_lock(&d->arch.hvm_domain.irq_lock); @@ -340,7 +326,7 @@ static void vioapic_deliver(struct hvm_vioapic *vioapic, unsigned int pin) struct domain *d = vioapic_domain(vioapic); struct vlapic *target; struct vcpu *v; - unsigned int irq = base_gsi(d, vioapic) + pin; + unsigned int irq = vioapic->base_gsi + pin; ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&d->arch.hvm_domain.irq_lock)); @@ -451,7 +437,7 @@ void vioapic_update_EOI(struct domain *d, u8 vector) { struct hvm_irq *hvm_irq = hvm_domain_irq(d); union vioapic_redir_entry *ent; - unsigned int i, base_gsi = 0; + unsigned int i; ASSERT(has_vioapic(d)); @@ -473,19 +459,18 @@ void vioapic_update_EOI(struct domain *d, u8 vector) if ( iommu_enabled ) { spin_unlock(&d->arch.hvm_domain.irq_lock); - hvm_dpci_eoi(d, base_gsi + pin, ent); + hvm_dpci_eoi(d, vioapic->base_gsi + pin, ent); spin_lock(&d->arch.hvm_domain.irq_lock); } if ( (ent->fields.trig_mode == VIOAPIC_LEVEL_TRIG) && !ent->fields.mask && - hvm_irq->gsi_assert_count[base_gsi + pin] ) + hvm_irq->gsi_assert_count[vioapic->base_gsi + pin] ) { ent->fields.remote_irr = 1; vioapic_deliver(vioapic, pin); } } - base_gsi += vioapic->nr_pins; } spin_unlock(&d->arch.hvm_domain.irq_lock); @@ -554,6 +539,7 @@ void vioapic_reset(struct domain *d) { vioapic->base_address = mp_ioapics[i].mpc_apicaddr; vioapic->id = mp_ioapics[i].mpc_apicid; + vioapic->base_gsi = io_apic_gsi_base(i); } vioapic->nr_pins = nr_pins; vioapic->domain = d; @@ -601,7 +587,12 @@ int vioapic_init(struct domain *d) nr_gsis += nr_pins; } - ASSERT(hvm_domain_irq(d)->nr_gsis == nr_gsis); + /* + * NB: hvm_domain_irq(d)->nr_gsis is actually the highest GSI + 1, but + * there might be holes in this range (ie: GSIs that don't belong to any + * vIO APIC). + */ + ASSERT(hvm_domain_irq(d)->nr_gsis >= nr_gsis); d->arch.hvm_domain.nr_vioapics = nr_vioapics; vioapic_reset(d); diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vioapic.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vioapic.h index 8ec91d2bd1..2ceb60eaef 100644 --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vioapic.h +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vioapic.h @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ struct hvm_vioapic { struct domain *domain; uint32_t nr_pins; + unsigned int base_gsi; union { XEN_HVM_VIOAPIC(,); struct hvm_hw_vioapic domU; _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |