|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts
On Tue, 24 May 2011, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Actually I think it is a good reason to fix pirq_needs_eoi that shouldn't
> > return unconditionally yes if dom0 doesn't support pirq_eoi_map.
> > The comment in Xen says:
> >
> > /*
> > * Even edge-triggered or message-based IRQs can need masking from
> > * time to time. If teh guest is not dynamically checking for this
> > * via the new pirq_eoi_map mechanism, it must conservatively always
> > * execute the EOI hypercall. In practice, this only really makes a
> > * difference for maskable MSI sources, and if those are supported
> > * then dom0 is probably modern anyway.
> > */
> >
> > Considering that I would rather avoid supporting pirq_eoi_map and we are
> > talking about edge triggered interrupts, do you think it would be safe
> > for me to send a patch to xen to change this behaviour?
> > Shouldn't we set XENIRQSTAT_needs_eoi only for level triggered
> > interrupts (and maybe maskable MSI sources)?
>
> Only if you can prove that the very first part of that comment is
> incorrect (in including "edge-triggered" and ignoring whether MSI
> sources are maskable). And your Linux side code would then still
> be incorrect for maskable MSIs (you'd continue to handle them
> as fasteoi with no up front clearing/masking while that is necessary
> as Thomas' report made clear).
>
> What's so wrong with pirq_eoi_map that you're trying to avoid it
> by all means?
The main issue is that if pirq_eoi_map is enabled PHYSDEVOP_eoi
automatically unmask the event channel.
There isn't even a way to specify if we want the unmask to be done or
not, it just does it.
I also think that it is a violation of the interface, see this comment
from xen/include/public/xen.h:
* Event channels are addressed by a "port index". Each channel is
* associated with two bits of information:
* 1. PENDING -- notifies the domain that there is a pending notification
* to be processed. This bit is cleared by the guest.
* 2. MASK -- if this bit is clear then a 0->1 transition of PENDING
* will cause an asynchronous upcall to be scheduled. This bit is only
--> * updated by the guest. It is read-only within Xen. If a channel
* becomes pending while the channel is masked then the 'edge' is lost
* (i.e., when the channel is unmasked, the guest must manually handle
* pending notifications as no upcall will be scheduled by Xen).
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts, (continued)
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts, Jan Beulich
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts, Stefano Stabellini
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts, Jan Beulich
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts, Jan Beulich
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts, Stefano Stabellini
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts,
Stefano Stabellini <=
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts, Jan Beulich
- Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Losing PS/2 Interrupts, Stefano Stabellini
|
|
|
|
|