[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] x86/MSI: adjust permitted vector range


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 18:47:34 +0100
  • Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com; arc=none
  • Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=14wrngn2w6vEI+Giqf6ydZkY3Hc5fSj4Xf8LvepCggo=; b=coJ2fEkTNv7EPahqDuKwNYEfv1Z7nNmYR3bSy+p9qJzTy/g1I7WSgZ5ReaooAWH+9CvpsFf9xJoIEmOncmNL5ho7/iAmVb9TZ7S9U4RrfSUTJVnmH40dYAjpSbJzc1llCAgtBRI38+lTjkz/XDIm9M671oA7p+/tZdY3a+emNeNxNqkUQnvb6Sf+/4puXu1jhHlmKPaeOh71lDdW+Yr99XSGwyBWlYnSyGrep44QANviE/YFqDhFljjDPqFXkqXlay/8E1aKmhyllpbLJ4A3OI9GiF3XnYGORydVR8TP1yt5iqF2udGaTqV5KrXio5kJFzBSs07GEIzEwIXO/bLb0Q==
  • Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=af2ziTgbBmI6B8VmUkADtgG+B/Qc6v6hH+dDt3MdSzXRQxJryGZcu5HaTvsfiack+sM0ouQQdiGTKLhWFZyiVX6lqkSQvpFxo/usJmvTYojuZa4A002S1ruUdtLrkBbDW/+SCBF+UyEC1rLDI/hiLXRceD6YCESjBmHXZK9u0DemhFLkqlVTycp5/JPqVemDJsHZiX+uXffVSZX9fhtoAOqFZLkW5wCXSOI9Z+m8dajt6nXgXGCBMBLJxkR3QhjGRU8tc+pEKGNh9QjrvUd2tX6kMnk2puNhqabttReSW1sgY3sq7JiaY96GM4wmI4Li8gRqAVpiRHnAxVXiEpIL2w==
  • Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=citrix.com;
  • Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Mon, 02 Feb 2026 17:47:51 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 05:12:40PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.02.2026 16:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 04:45:05PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> It's really FIRST_IRQ_VECTOR vector which is meant here, i.e. effectively
> >> there is a form of open-coding in use right now.
> >>
> >> No change in practice, due to the present aliasing.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> While doing the HPET work I had to fiddle with this, even if in the end
> >> no vector below FIRST_DYNAMIC_VECTOR is being used there (for now at
> >> least).
> >>
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/msi.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/msi.c
> >> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ void msi_compose_msg(unsigned vector, co
> >>  {
> >>      memset(msg, 0, sizeof(*msg));
> >>  
> >> -    if ( vector < FIRST_DYNAMIC_VECTOR )
> >> +    if ( vector < FIRST_IRQ_VECTOR )
> > 
> > Should vector also be rejected if it's > LAST_IRQ_VECTOR?
> 
> That's a good question for which I don't have a good answer. I can't exclude
> that composing an MSI message (for purposes other than using in an MSI
> capability) might make sense with a vector above LAST_IRQ_VECTOR. Originally
> (as hinted at in the post-commit-message remark) this change was part of the
> HPET work, where it was an actual functional change as in an early version I
> needed to move FIRST_IRQ_VECTOR down (i.e. decouple it from
> FIRST_DYNAMIC_VECTOR). There the "composed" message was used to fill
> HPET_T<n>_ROUTE. Something similar might be wanted elsewhere, and it's not
> quite clear to me whether in such a situation LAST_IRQ_VECTOR would then
> also need moving (likely it would).

It's possible that we could add a range between FIRST_IRQ_VECTOR and
FIRST_DYNAMIC_VECTOR that could be used for fixed low priority
vectors.

> Right here I'm really only after the semantic, but non-functional change. If
> we can settle on also enforcing an upper bound, I think that would then want
> to be another change on top.

Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks, Roger.



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.