Message-ID: <20120625201206.GD11266@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:12:06 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:	avi@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jan.kiszka@...mens.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4][RFC] kvm: eoi_eventfd

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:09:37AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 01:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 03:50:12PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2012-06-24 at 18:40 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 08:47:57AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2012-06-24 at 11:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 04:16:53PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > > I think we're probably also going to need something like this.
> > > > > > > When running in non-accelerated qemu, we're going to have to
> > > > > > > create some kind of EOI notifier for drivers.  VFIO can make
> > > > > > > additional improvements when running on KVM so it will probably
> > > > > > > make use of the KVM_IRQFD_LEVEL_EOI interface, but we don't
> > > > > > > want to have a generic EOI notifier in qemu that just stops
> > > > > > > working when kvm-ioapic is enabled.  This is just a simple way
> > > > > > > to register an eventfd using the existing KVM ack notifier.
> > > > > > > I tried combining the ack notifier of the LEVEL_EOI interface
> > > > > > > into this one, but it didn't work out well.  The code complexity
> > > > > > > goes up a lot.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt |   14 ++++++
> > > > > > >  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c                |    1 
> > > > > > >  include/linux/kvm.h               |   12 +++++
> > > > > > >  include/linux/kvm_host.h          |    7 +++
> > > > > > >  virt/kvm/eventfd.c                |   89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c               |    9 ++++
> > > > > > >  6 files changed, 132 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> > > > > > > index 2f8a0aa..69b1747 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> > > > > > > @@ -1998,6 +1998,20 @@ matched using kvm_irqfd.fd, kvm_irqfd.gsi, and kvm_irqfd.fd2.
> > > > > > >  De-assigning automatically de-asserts the interrupt line setup through
> > > > > > >  this interface.
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > +4.77 KVM_EOI_EVENTFD
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +Capability: KVM_CAP_EOI_EVENTFD
> > > > > > > +Architectures: x86
> > > > > > > +Type: vm ioctl
> > > > > > > +Parameters: struct kvm_eoi_eventfd (in)
> > > > > > > +Returns: 0 on success, -1 on error
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +This interface allows userspace to be notified through an eventfd for
> > > > > > > +EOI writes to the in-kernel irqchip.  kvm_eoi_eventfd.fd specifies
> > > > > > > +the eventfd to signal on EOI to kvm_eoi_eventfd.gsi.  To disable,
> > > > > > > +use KVM_EOI_EVENTFD_FLAG_DEASSIGN and specify both the original fd
> > > > > > > +and gsi.
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >  5. The kvm_run structure
> > > > > > >  ------------------------
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The patch looks like it only works for ioapic IRQs.  I think it's a good
> > > > > > idea to explicitly limit this to level interrupts, straight away:
> > > > > > there's no reason for userspace to need an exit on an edge interrupt.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Are you suggesting documentation or code to prevent users from binding
> > > > > to an edge interrupt?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes.
> > > 
> > > Ok, that was failed attempt at clarification.  I'll assume documentation
> > > is sufficient.
> > > 
> > > > > > I also suggest we put LEVEL somewhere in the name.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ok
> > > > > 
> > > > > > With this eventfd, do we also need the fd2 parameter in the irqfd
> > > > > > structure? It seems to be used for the same thing ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes we still need fd2, this does not replace KVM_IRQFD_LEVEL_EOI.  The
> > > > > models we need to support are:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1) assert from userspace (IRQ_LINE), eoi to userspace (EOI_EVENTFD),
> > > > > de-assert from userspace (IRQ_LINE)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2a) assert from vfio (IRQFD.fd), de-assert in kvm, notify vfio
> > > > > (IRQFD.fd2)
> > > > > or
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2b) assert from vfio (IRQFD.fd), eoi to vfio (EOI_EVENTFD), de-assert
> > > > > from vfio (IRQFD.fd2)
> > > > 
> > > > Or maybe deassert in kvm, notify vfio using eventfd?
> > > 
> > > Um, how is that different from 2a?  Are you suggesting EOI_EVENTFD does
> > > a de-assert?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > >  My first implementation of this whole thing looked like
> > > this:
> > > 
> > >         irq_source_id = ioctl(vmfd, KVM_GET_IRQ_SOURCE_ID)
> > >         
> > >         struct kvm_irqfd irqfd = {
> > >             .fd = fd,
> > >             .gsi = gsi,
> > >             .flags = KVM_IRQFD_FLAG_LEVEL | KVM_IRQFD_FLAG_SOURCE_ID,
> > 
> > FLAG_LEVEL might not be needed.
> 
> Yep, would be nice to get some confirmation on this.  If we can just do
> a single kvm_set_irq(,,,1) w/o 0, I'll add a patch in the series to make
> that change.

Avi, Marcelo, any comments? There are unlikely to be
any apps using this undocumented hack to send level
interrupts woth irqfd - ok to remove?

> > >             .irq_source_id = irq_source_id,
> > >         };
> > >         
> > >         ioctl(vmfd, KVM_IRQFD, &irqfd);
> > >         
> > >         struct kvm_eoi_eventfd eoifd = {
> > >             .fd = fd2,
> > >             .gsi = gsi,
> > >             .flags = KVM_EOI_EVENTFD_FLAG_SOURCE_ID,
> > >             .irq_source_id = irq_source_id,
> > >         };
> > >         
> > >         ioctl(vmfd, KVM_EOI_EVENTFD, &eoifd);
> > > 
> > > What I didn't like about this was that the latter two ioctls are too
> > > interdependent on each other.  For instance, ordering of de-assignment
> > > is potentially important to avoid leaving the interrupt asserted.  The
> > > combined KVM_IRQFD_LEVEL_EOI completely manages that.  Also, if qemu
> > > wants to make use of this, they do not want the de-assert on EOI
> > 
> > IMO it should not matter.  Most likely level is already 0 by the time
> > EOI is invoked.  eventfds are asynchronous so you do not want
> > level to stay asserted until some action.
> > If qemu does not want the deassert on EOI, it should just
> > avoid using the eventfd interface.
> 
> Well, that prevents us from even notifying qemu about an EOI when
> irqchip is enabled without introducing other behavioral changes.  That
> seems bad.

Frankly, using EOIs is a hack.  It seems better to hide it
from userspace.

> > > and
> > > want to make use of the fixed userspace source id, so we end up with a
> > > source id flag and a de-assert flag.  Eventually I decided that using a
> > > new source id is really only required when using an irqfd, so we could
> > > keep the source id internal and simplify the interface by pulling it all
> > > into KVM_IRQFD.
> > 
> > 
> > I see, thanks for the clarification.  But then we end up with
> > EOI_EVENTFD for userspace that duplicates some of the functionality.
> > I'm not sure how to do it best. How about passing in a special
> > fd value to IRQFD so that only fd2 is valid?
> 
> I can try it.  I did try to implement implement the code so that the EOI
> portion or LEVEL_EOI used the EOI_EVENTFD code directly, but it got
> overly complicated for the effectively trivial code savings.  Should we
> go ahead and try to implement the full gamut of what we could do too?  I
> think it would look something like this:
> 
> #define KVM_IRQFD_FLAG_DEASSIGN (1 << 0)
> #define KVM_IRQFD_LEVEL_EOI_FD (1 << 1)
> #define KVM_IRQFD_LEVEL_DEASSERT_ON_EOI (1 << 2)
> #define KVM_IRQFD_LEVEL_DEASSERT_FD (1 << 3)
> 
> struct kvm_irqfd {
>         __u32 fd;  /* interrupt assert (irqfd) */
>         __u32 gsi;
>         __u32 flags;
>         __u32 fd2;  /* EOI notification (eventfd) */

Call this eoifd then?

>         __u32 fd3;  /* interrupt de-assert (irqfd) */
>         __u8  pad[12];
> };
> 
> I'm a little nervous that the shutdown routine might be a mess with two
> irqfds, but we'll see.  We could assume kvm_irqfd.fd = ~0 is reserved
> and allows us to skip irqfd setup, but I think we might be better off
> using a flag with the opposite polarity, perhaps KVM_IRQFD_NO_ASSERT.

Maybe drop DEASSERT_FD? No one is likely to use it short term so it
will bitrot.

> It's becoming quite a complicated ioctl though and you usually seem
> opposed to multiplexing ioctls for so many options.  Thanks,
> 
> Alex

I don't mind really.

> > > > > This series enables 1) and 2a).  2b) has some pros and cons.  The pro is
> > > > > that vfio could test the device to see if an interrupt is pending and
> > > > > not de-assert if there is still an interrupt pending.  The con is that a
> > > > > standard level interrupt cycle takes 3 transactions instead of 2.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any case of triggering the interrupt externally via an irqfd requires
> > > > > that the irqfd uses it's own irq_source_id so that it doesn't interfere
> > > > > with KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID.  So we can't mix IRQ_LINE and IRQFD
> > > > > unless we want to completely expose a new irq source id allocation
> > > > > mechanism and include it in all the interfaces (KVM_GET_IRQ_SOURCE_ID,
> > > > > KVM_PUT_IRQ_SOURCE_ID, pass a source id to IRQFD and IRQ_LINE, etc).
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Alex
> > > > 
> > > > I don't follow this last paragraph. What are you trying to say?
> > > > To support IRQ sharing for level irqs, each irqfd for level IRQ
> > > > must have a distinct source id. But IRQ_LINE works fine without,
> > > > and one source ID for all irq_line users seems enough.
> > > 
> > > Ok, assume we have irqfd support as implemented in 3/4, but instead of
> > > allocating a new irq_source_id, we just use KVM_USERSPACE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID.
> > > The irqfd is triggered and asserts the interrupt line.  The guest begins
> > > handling the interrupt, first probing an emulated device, but it has
> > > nothing to do so moves on to the assigned device on the same interrupt
> > > line.  Qemu then decides that emulated device really does have something
> > > to do and assert the interrupt line.  Nothing happens because the guest
> > > is already handling that interrupt.  Guest finishes and writes an eoi.
> > > We're done, so we deassert.  Qemu's assert gets lost.
> > > 
> > > If we use a new irq_source_id, the guest sees the logical OR of all the
> > > source ids for that interrupt line, so even though we de-assert, the
> > > guest receives another interrupt because qemu's interrupt line status is
> > > still visible.  Qemu is able to share a single irq_source_id for all
> > > it's devices because the various components in the set_irq path are able
> > > to multiplex multiple emulated interrupt sources themselves.
> > > 
> > > As above, I argue that the only time you need a new source id is if
> > > you're injecting an interrupt from outside of the userspace model, which
> > > pretty much means irqfd.
> > 
> > This last paragraph is true IMO.
> > 
> > >  Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Alex
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists