Message-ID: <61f649fb-9a94-1d94-e982-0786452f5d06@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:18:51 +0100
From:   Auger Eric <eric.auger@...hat.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Christoffer Dall <cdall@...nel.org>
Cc:     Shunyong Yang <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, will.deacon@....com,
        david.daney@...ium.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Joey Zheng <yu.zheng@...-semitech.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: change condition for level
 interrupt resampling

Hi Marc,

On 09/03/18 10:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 08/03/18 18:12, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Marc, Christoffer,
>>
>> On 08/03/18 18:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:19:00 +0000,
>>> Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:54:27AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> On 08/03/18 09:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>> [updated Christoffer's email address]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Shunyong,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/03/18 07:01, Shunyong Yang wrote:
>>>>>>> When resampling irqfds is enabled, level interrupt should be
>>>>>>> de-asserted when resampling happens. On page 4-47 of GIC v3
>>>>>>> specification IHI0069D, it said,
>>>>>>> "When the PE acknowledges an SGI, a PPI, or an SPI at the CPU
>>>>>>> interface, the IRI changes the status of the interrupt to active
>>>>>>> and pending if:
>>>>>>> • It is an edge-triggered interrupt, and another edge has been
>>>>>>> detected since the interrupt was acknowledged.
>>>>>>> • It is a level-sensitive interrupt, and the level has not been
>>>>>>> deasserted since the interrupt was acknowledged."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GIC v2 specification IHI0048B.b has similar description on page
>>>>>>> 3-42 for state machine transition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When some VFIO device, like mtty(8250 VFIO mdev emulation driver
>>>>>>> in samples/vfio-mdev) triggers a level interrupt, the status
>>>>>>> transition in LR is pending-->active-->active and pending.
>>>>>>> Then it will wait resampling to de-assert the interrupt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Current design of lr_signals_eoi_mi() will return false if state
>>>>>>> in LR is not invalid(Inactive). It causes resampling will not happen
>>>>>>> in mtty case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me rephrase this, and tell me if I understood it correctly:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - A level interrupt is injected, activated by the guest (LR state=active)
>>>>>> - guest exits, re-enters, (LR state=pending+active)
>>>>>> - guest EOIs the interrupt (LR state=pending)
>>>>>> - maintenance interrupt
>>>>>> - we don't signal the resampling because we're not in an invalid state
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an interesting case, because it seems to invalidate some of the 
>>>>>> optimization that went in over a year ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 096f31c4360f KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Get rid of MISR and EISR fields
>>>>>> b6095b084d87 KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Get rid of unnecessary save_maint_int_state
>>>>>> af0614991ab6 KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Get rid of unnecessary process_maintenance operation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could compare the value of the LR before the guest entry with
>>>>>> the value at exit time, but we still could miss it if we have a
>>>>>> transition such as P+A -> P -> A and assume a long enough propagation
>>>>>> delay for the maintenance interrupt (which is very likely).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In essence, we have lost the benefit of EISR, which was to give us a
>>>>>> way to deal with asynchronous signalling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This will cause interrupt fired continuously to guest even 8250 IIR
>>>>>>> has no interrupt. When 8250's interrupt is configured in shared mode,
>>>>>>> it will pass interrupt to other drivers to handle. However, there
>>>>>>> is no other driver involved. Then, a "nobody cared" kernel complaint
>>>>>>> occurs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> / # cat /dev/ttyS0
>>>>>>> [    4.826836] random: crng init done
>>>>>>> [    6.373620] irq 41: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll"
>>>>>>> option)
>>>>>>> [    6.376414] CPU: 0 PID: 1307 Comm: cat Not tainted 4.16.0-rc4 #4
>>>>>>> [    6.378927] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
>>>>>>> [    6.380876] Call trace:
>>>>>>> [    6.381937]  dump_backtrace+0x0/0x180
>>>>>>> [    6.383495]  show_stack+0x14/0x1c
>>>>>>> [    6.384902]  dump_stack+0x90/0xb4
>>>>>>> [    6.386312]  __report_bad_irq+0x38/0xe0
>>>>>>> [    6.387944]  note_interrupt+0x1f4/0x2b8
>>>>>>> [    6.389568]  handle_irq_event_percpu+0x54/0x7c
>>>>>>> [    6.391433]  handle_irq_event+0x44/0x74
>>>>>>> [    6.393056]  handle_fasteoi_irq+0x9c/0x154
>>>>>>> [    6.394784]  generic_handle_irq+0x24/0x38
>>>>>>> [    6.396483]  __handle_domain_irq+0x60/0xb4
>>>>>>> [    6.398207]  gic_handle_irq+0x98/0x1b0
>>>>>>> [    6.399796]  el1_irq+0xb0/0x128
>>>>>>> [    6.401138]  _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x18/0x40
>>>>>>> [    6.403149]  __setup_irq+0x41c/0x678
>>>>>>> [    6.404669]  request_threaded_irq+0xe0/0x190
>>>>>>> [    6.406474]  univ8250_setup_irq+0x208/0x234
>>>>>>> [    6.408250]  serial8250_do_startup+0x1b4/0x754
>>>>>>> [    6.410123]  serial8250_startup+0x20/0x28
>>>>>>> [    6.411826]  uart_startup.part.21+0x78/0x144
>>>>>>> [    6.413633]  uart_port_activate+0x50/0x68
>>>>>>> [    6.415328]  tty_port_open+0x84/0xd4
>>>>>>> [    6.416851]  uart_open+0x34/0x44
>>>>>>> [    6.418229]  tty_open+0xec/0x3c8
>>>>>>> [    6.419610]  chrdev_open+0xb0/0x198
>>>>>>> [    6.421093]  do_dentry_open+0x200/0x310
>>>>>>> [    6.422714]  vfs_open+0x54/0x84
>>>>>>> [    6.424054]  path_openat+0x2dc/0xf04
>>>>>>> [    6.425569]  do_filp_open+0x68/0xd8
>>>>>>> [    6.427044]  do_sys_open+0x16c/0x224
>>>>>>> [    6.428563]  SyS_openat+0x10/0x18
>>>>>>> [    6.429972]  el0_svc_naked+0x30/0x34
>>>>>>> [    6.431494] handlers:
>>>>>>> [    6.432479] [<000000000e9fb4bb>] serial8250_interrupt
>>>>>>> [    6.434597] Disabling IRQ #41
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch changes the lr state condition in lr_signals_eoi_mi() from
>>>>>>> invalid(Inactive) to active and pending to avoid this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not sure about the original design of the condition of
>>>>>>> invalid(active). So, This RFC is sent out for comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cc: Joey Zheng <yu.zheng@...-semitech.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shunyong Yang <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
>>>>>>> index e9d840a75e7b..740ee9a5f551 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v2.c
>>>>>>> @@ -46,8 +46,8 @@ void vgic_v2_set_underflow(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  static bool lr_signals_eoi_mi(u32 lr_val)
>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>> -	return !(lr_val & GICH_LR_STATE) && (lr_val & GICH_LR_EOI) &&
>>>>>>> -	       !(lr_val & GICH_LR_HW);
>>>>>>> +	return !((lr_val & GICH_LR_STATE) ^ GICH_LR_STATE) &&
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That feels very wrong. You're now signalling the resampling in both
>>>>>> invalid and pending+active, and the latter state doesn't mean you've
>>>>>> EOIed anything. You're now over-signalling, and signalling the
>>>>>> wrong event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +	       (lr_val & GICH_LR_EOI) && !(lr_val & GICH_LR_HW);
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  /*
>>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
>>>>>>> index 6b329414e57a..43111bba7af9 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c
>>>>>>> @@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ void vgic_v3_set_underflow(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  static bool lr_signals_eoi_mi(u64 lr_val)
>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>> -	return !(lr_val & ICH_LR_STATE) && (lr_val & ICH_LR_EOI) &&
>>>>>>> -	       !(lr_val & ICH_LR_HW);
>>>>>>> +	return !((lr_val & ICH_LR_STATE) ^ ICH_LR_STATE) &&
>>>>>>> +	       (lr_val & ICH_LR_EOI) && !(lr_val & ICH_LR_HW);
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  void vgic_v3_fold_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming I understand the issue correctly, I cannot really see how
>>>>>> to solve this without reintroducing EISR, which sucks majorly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll try to cook something shortly and we can all have a good
>>>>>> fight about how crap this is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's what I came up with. I don't really like it, but that's
>>>>> the least invasive this I could come up with. Please let me
>>>>> know if that helps with your test case. Note that I have only
>>>>> boot-tested this on a sample of 1 machine, so I don't expect this
>>>>> to be perfect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, any guideline on how to reproduce this would be much appreciated.
>>>>> I never used this mdev/mtty thing, so please bear with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> 	M.
>>>>>
>>>>> From 66a7c4cfc1029b0169dd771e196e2876ba3f17b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>>> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 11:14:06 +0000
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: Do not rely on LR state to guess EOI MI
>>>>>  status
>>>>>
>>>>> We so far rely on the LR state to decide whether the guest has
>>>>> EOI'd a level interrupt or not. While this looks like a good
>>>>> idea on the surface, it leads to a couple of annoying corner
>>>>> cases:
>>>>>
>>>>> Example 1: (P = Pending, A = Active, MI = Maintenance Interrupt)
>>>>> P -> guest IAR -> A -> exit/entry -> P+A -> guest EOI -> P -> MI
>>>>
>>>> Do we really get an EOI maintenance interrupt here?  Reading the MISR
>>>> and EISR descriptions make me thing this is not the case...
>>
>> Hum yes in EISR it is said that ICH_LR.State = 0b00!
>>>
>>> Yeah, it looks like I always want EISR to do what I want, and not to
>>> do what it does. Man, this thing is such a piece of crap.
>>>
>>> OK, scratch that. We need to do it without the help of the HW.
>>>
>>>>> The state is now pending, we've really EOI'd the interrupt, and
>>>>> yet lr_signals_eoi_mi() returns false, since the state is not 0.
>>>>> The result is that we won't signal anything on the corresponding
>>>>> irqfd, which people complain about. Meh.
>>>>
>>>> So the core of the problem is that when we've entered the guest with
>>>> PENDING+ACTIVE and when we exit (for some reason) we don't signal the
>>>> resamplefd, right?  The solution seems to me that we don't ever do
>>>> PENDING+ACTIVE if you need to resample after each deactivate.  What
>>>> would be the point of appending a pending state that you only know to be
>>>> valid after a resample anyway?
>>>
>>> The question is then to identify that a given source needs to be
>>> signalled back to VFIO. Calling into the eventfd code on the hot path
>>> is pretty horrid (I'm not sure if we can really call into this with
>>> interrupts disabled, for example).
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Example 2:
>>>>> P+A -> guest EOI -> P -> delayed MI -> guest IAR -> A -> MI fires
>>>>
>>>> We could be more clever and do the following calculation on every exit:
>>>>
>>>> If you enter with P, and exit with either A or 0, then signal.
>>>>
>>>> If you enter with P+A, and you exit with either P, A, or 0, then signal.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't that also solve it?  (Although I have a feeling you'd miss some
>>>> exits in this case).
>>>
>>> I'd be more confident if we did forbid P+A for such interrupts
>>> altogether, as they really feel like another kind of HW interrupt.
>>
>> the LR P+A looks strange to me too. all the more so it may cause the
>> same IRQ to be acked twice?
> 
> If the pending bit isn't dropped by the time we get to EOI the first
> one, probably. But that's pretty much expected with a level interrupt
> isn't it?
> 
>> P -> A -> 0 (resample). Doesn't our issue come from the fact we reinject
>> the P in LR until the line level is deasserted?
> 
> Which is consistent with the life cycle of a level interrupt. What
> usually happens is (for a non HW interrupt):
> 
> P -> IAR -> A -> lower the line in the device -> 0
> 
> If you generate an exit at the right spot, and yet don't lower the line,
> you end up with:
> 
> P -> IAR -> A -> exit/enter -> P+A
> 
> From there, if you lower the line, it is likely to cause an exit:
> 
> P+A -> MMIO trap lowering the line -> A
> 
>>>
>>> Eric: Is there any way to get a callback from the eventfd code to flag
>>> a given irq as requiring a notification on EOI?
>>
>> bool kvm_irq_has_notifier(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned irqchip, unsigned
>> pin) was used in the past. I think it does what you want.
>>
> 
> Not exactly. I'm very reluctant to call this on the hot path (I'd need
> the info on hw_flush), and I'd rather have a callback from the eventfd
> subsystem to tell me when a pin is being associated with a notifier
> (because this is likely to be very rare).
> 
> If that doesn't exit, never mind. We can see if that solves Shunyong
> issue and optimize later.
We don't have such callback mechanism AFAK. However we may call an arch
specific function in kvm_irqfd_assign.

Thanks

Eric

> 
> 	M.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists