WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Add MSI support to XEN

To: Espen Skoglund <espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Add MSI support to XEN
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:00:00 +0000
Cc: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Li, Xin B" <xin.b.li@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:01:18 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <18412.57704.115260.217677@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AciQ06Fg37TmsPzGEdyACAAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Add MSI support to XEN
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122
Oh yes, that is true. They then have special logic for detecting nested
delivery and mask/unmask in that case. Fair enough, and similar to what we
should do in Xen.

 -- Keir

On 28/3/08 12:15, "Espen Skoglund" <espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Just checked this.  Linux does the local APIC EOI on ->ack().
> 
> eSk
> 
> 
> [Keir Fraser]
>> I think Linux EOIs on ->end() not on ->ack(). Which is fine since
>> Linux doesn't defer or otherwise schedule ISR handlers.
> 
>>  -- Keir
> 
>> On 28/3/08 11:37, "Espen Skoglund" <espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> That is true.  I was quite puzzled with the requirement of the
>>> callback into Xen myself.  In standard Linux MSI interrupts are
>>> treated as edge triggered and are just acked in the local APIC upon
>>> delivery.
>>> 
>>> eSk
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Keir Fraser]
>>>> This requires the guest to call back into Xen to signal EOI (as we already
>>>> do for legacy level-triggered interrupts). We shouldn't really need to do
>>>> that for MSI and it's rather more expensive than a couple of accesses over
>>>> the PCI bus!
>>> 
>>>> It's this callback into Xen, which we do not really understand why it's
>>>> needed, which I'm railing against. Is there some fundamental aspect of MSI
>>>> we do not understand, or are we working around one brain-dead or buggy
>>>> device?
>>> 
>>>> -- Keir
>>> 
>>>> On 28/3/08 01:48, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Not masking each time when interrupt happen, instead, we do that only
>>>>> when the second interrupt happen while the previous one is still
>>>>> pending, it should be something like handle_edge_irqs() in upstream
>>>>> linux.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Yunhong Jiang
>>>>> 
>>>>> Espen Skoglund <mailto:espen.skoglund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Preventing interrupt storms by masking the interrupt in the MSI/MSI-X
>>>>>> capabilty structure or MSI-X table within the interrupt handler is
>>>>>> insane.  It requires accesses over the PCI/PCIe bus and is clearly
>>>>>> something you want to avoid on the fast path.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> eSk
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [Haitao Shan]
>>>>>>> There are no much changes made compared with the original
>>>>> patches.
>>>>>>> But there do have some issues that we need your kind comments.
>>>>>> 
> 1> ACK-NEW method is necessary to avoid IRQ storm. But it causes
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> deadlock. During my tests, I do find there can be deadlock
>>>>> with
>>>>>>> patches applied. When assigned a NIC device to HVM domain, the
>>>>> scenario
>>>>>>> is: Dom0 is waiting to IDE interrupt (vector 0x21); HVM domain is
>>>>> waiting
>>>>>>> for qemu's IDE emulation and thus blocked; NIC interrupt (MSI vector
>>>>> 0x31)
>>>>>>> is waiting for injection to HVM domain since it is blocked now; IDE
>>>>>>> interrupt is waiting for NIC interrupt since NIC interrupt is of high
>>>>>>> priority but not ACKed by XEN now. When IDE interrupt and NIC
>>>>> interrupt
>>>>>>> are delivered to the same CPU, and when guest OS is Vista, the
>>>>>>> phenomenon is easy to be observed.
>>>>>> 
> 2> Without ACK-NEW, some naughty NIC devices as we observed will
>>>>>>> bring IRQ storms. For this phenomenon, I think Yunhong can comment
>>>>> more.
>>>>>>> Basically, writing EOI without mask the source of MSI will bring IRQ
>>>>>>> storm. Although the reason is under investigation, XEN should anyhow
>>>>>>> handle such bogous device, right?
>>>>>> 
> 3> Using ACK-OLD and masking the MSI when writing EOI can be
>>>>>>> solution. However, XEN does not own PCI configuration spaces.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel