Message-ID: <1100e6b1-6fa8-06f0-8ecc-b0699a2ce5f4@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 22:03:57 +0000
From:   Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave P Martin <dave.martin@....com>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Subject: Re: xen/evtchn and forced threaded irq

Hi Boris,

On 2/20/19 9:46 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 2/20/19 3:46 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>> (+ Andrew and Jan for feedback on the event channel interrupt)
>>
>> Hi Boris,
>>
>> Thank you for the your feedback.
>>
>> On 2/20/19 8:04 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 2/20/19 1:05 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 20/02/2019 17:07, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>> On 2/20/19 9:15 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Boris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/02/2019 00:02, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 05:31:10PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been looking at using Linux RT in Dom0. Once the guest is
>>>>>>>> started,
>>>>>>>> the console is ending to have a lot of warning (see trace below).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After some investigation, this is because the irq handler will now
>>>>>>>> be threaded.
>>>>>>>> I can reproduce the same error with the vanilla Linux when passing
>>>>>>>> the option
>>>>>>>> 'threadirqs' on the command line (the trace below is from 5.0.0-rc7
>>>>>>>> that has
>>>>>>>> not RT support).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FWIW, the interrupt for port 6 is used to for the guest to
>>>>>>>> communicate with
>>>>>>>> xenstore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     From my understanding, this is happening because the interrupt
>>>>>>>> handler is now
>>>>>>>> run in a thread. So we can have the following happening.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        Interrupt context            |     Interrupt thread
>>>>>>>>                                     |
>>>>>>>>        receive interrupt port 6     |
>>>>>>>>        clear the evtchn port        |
>>>>>>>>        set IRQF_RUNTHREAD            |
>>>>>>>>        kick interrupt thread        |
>>>>>>>>                                     |    clear IRQF_RUNTHREAD
>>>>>>>>                                     |    call evtchn_interrupt
>>>>>>>>        receive interrupt port 6     |
>>>>>>>>        clear the evtchn port        |
>>>>>>>>        set IRQF_RUNTHREAD           |
>>>>>>>>        kick interrupt thread        |
>>>>>>>>                                     |    disable interrupt port 6
>>>>>>>>                                     |    evtchn->enabled = false
>>>>>>>>                                     |    [....]
>>>>>>>>                                     |
>>>>>>>>                                     |    *** Handling the second
>>>>>>>> interrupt ***
>>>>>>>>                                     |    clear IRQF_RUNTHREAD
>>>>>>>>                                     |    call evtchn_interrupt
>>>>>>>>                                     |    WARN(...)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not entirely sure how to fix this. I have two solutions in
>>>>>>>> mind:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Prevent the interrupt handler to be threaded. We would also
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> switch from spin_lock to raw_spin_lock as the former may sleep on
>>>>>>>> RT-Linux.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) Remove the warning
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think access to evtchn->enabled is racy so (with or without the
>>>>>>> warning) we can't use it reliably.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking about it, it would not be the only issue. The ring is sized
>>>>>> to contain only one instance of the same event. So if you receive
>>>>>> twice the event, you may overflow the ring.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm... That's another argument in favor of "unthreading" the handler.
>>>>
>>>> I first thought it would be possible to unthread it. However,
>>>> wake_up_interruptible is using a spin_lock. On RT spin_lock can sleep,
>>>> so this cannot be used in an interrupt context.
>>>>
>>>> So I think "unthreading" the handler is not an option here.
>>>
>>> That sounds like a different problem. I.e. there are two issues:
>>> * threaded interrupts don't work properly (races, ring overflow)
>>> * evtchn_interrupt() (threaded or not) has spin_lock(), which is not
>>> going to work for RT
>>
>> I am afraid that's not correct, you can use spin_lock() in threaded
>> interrupt handler.
> 
> In non-RT handler -- yes, but not in an RT one (in fact, isn't this what
> you yourself said above?)

In RT-linux, interrupt handlers are threaded by default. So the handler 
will not run in the interrupt context. Hence, it will be safe to call 
spin_lock.

However, if you force the handler to not be threaded (IRQF_NO_THREAD), 
it will run in interrupt context.

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another alternative could be to queue the irq if !evtchn->enabled
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> handle it in evtchn_write() (which is where irq is supposed to be
>>>>>>> re-enabled).
>>>>>> What do you mean by queue? Is it queueing in the ring?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I was thinking about having a new structure for deferred
>>>>> interrupts.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm, I am not entirely sure what would be the structure here. Could
>>>> you expand your thinking?
>>>
>>> Some sort of a FIFO that stores {irq, data} tuple. It could obviously be
>>> implemented as a ring but not necessarily as Xen shared ring (if that's
>>> what you were referring to).
>>
>> The underlying question is what happen if you miss an interrupt. Is it
>> going to be ok?
> 
> This I am not sure about. I thought yes since we are signaling the
> process only once.

I have CCed Andrew and Jan to see if they can help here.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

Powered by blists - more mailing lists