[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc7ce2e7-dd5d-d78d-9064-93225d14139f@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 21:41:28 +0800
From: luoben <luoben@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: "Liu, Jiang" <gerry@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, alex.williamson@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tao.ma@...ux.alibaba.com,
nanhai.zou@...ux.alibaba.com, linyunsheng@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] vfio_pci: make use of update_irq_devid and
optimize irq ops
在 2019/8/20 下午11:27, Liu, Jiang 写道:
>
>> On Aug 20, 2019, at 11:24 PM, luoben <luoben@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 在 2019/8/16 上午12:45, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Ben Luo wrote:
>>>
>>>> if (vdev->ctx[vector].trigger) {
>>>> - free_irq(irq, vdev->ctx[vector].trigger);
>>>> - irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vdev->ctx[vector].producer);
>>>> - kfree(vdev->ctx[vector].name);
>>>> - eventfd_ctx_put(vdev->ctx[vector].trigger);
>>>> - vdev->ctx[vector].trigger = NULL;
>>>> + if (vdev->ctx[vector].trigger == trigger) {
>>>> + irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vdev->ctx[vector].producer);
>>>>
>>> What's the point of unregistering the producer, just to register it again below?
>> Whether producer token changed or not, irq_bypass_register_producer() is a way (seems the
>>
>> only way) to update IRTE by VFIO for posted interrupt.
>>
>> When posted interrupt is in use, the target IRTE will be used by IOMMU directly to find the
>>
>> target CPU for an interrupt posted to VM, since hypervisor is bypassed.
>>
>> irq_bypass_register_producer() will modify IRTE based on the information retrieved from KVM,
>>
>>
>> 0xffffffff8150a920 : modify_irte+0x0/0x180 [kernel]
>> 0xffffffff8150ab94 : intel_ir_set_vcpu_affinity+0xf4/0x150 [kernel]
>> 0xffffffff81125f3c : irq_set_vcpu_affinity+0x5c/0xa0 [kernel]
>> 0xffffffffa0550818 : vmx_update_pi_irte+0x178/0x290 [kvm_intel] // get pi_desc etc. from KVM
>> 0xffffffffa052b789 : kvm_arch_irq_bypass_add_producer+0x39/0x50 [kvm_intel] (inexact)
>> 0xffffffffa024a50b : __connect+0x7b/0xa0 [kvm] (inexact)
>> 0xffffffffa024a6a8 : irq_bypass_register_producer+0x108/0x140 [kvm] (inexact)
>> 0xffffffffa0338386 : vfio_msi_set_vector_signal+0x1b6/0x2c0 [vfio_pci] (inexact)
>>>> + } else if (trigger) {
>>>> + ret = update_irq_devid(irq,
>>>> + vdev->ctx[vector].trigger, trigger);
>>>> + if (unlikely(ret)) {
>>>> + dev_info(&pdev->dev,
>>>> + "update_irq_devid %d (token %p) fails: %d\n",
>>>>
>>> s/fails/failed/
>>>
>>>
>>>> + irq, vdev->ctx[vector].trigger, ret);
>>>> + eventfd_ctx_put(trigger);
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>> This lacks any form of comment why this is correct. dev_id is updated and
>>> the producer with the old token is still registered.
>>>
>> ok, I will add comment like below:
>>
>> For KVM-VFIO case, once producer and consumer connected successfully, interrupt from passthrough
>>
>> device will be directly delivered to VM instead of triggering interrupt process in HOST. If producer and
>>
>> consumer are disconnected, this interrupt process will fall back to remap mode, the handler vfio_msihandler()
>>
>> registered in corresponding irqaction will use the dev_id to find the right way to deliver the interrupt to VM.
>>
>> So, it is safe to update dev_id before unregistration of irq-bypass producer, i.e. switch back from posted
>>
>> mode to remap mode, since only in remap mode the 'dev_id' will be used by interrupt handler. To producer
>>
>> and consumer, dev_id is only a token for pairing them togather.
>>>> + irq_bypass_unregister_producer(&vdev->ctx[vector].producer);
>>>>
>>> Now it's unregistered.
>>>
>>>
>>>> + eventfd_ctx_put(vdev->ctx[vector].trigger);
>>>> + vdev->ctx[vector].producer.token = trigger;
>>>>
>>> The token is updated and then it's newly registered below.
>>>
>>>
>>>> + vdev->ctx[vector].trigger = trigger;
>>>> - vdev->ctx[vector].producer.token = trigger;
>>>> - vdev->ctx[vector].producer.irq = irq;
>>>> + /* always update irte for posted mode */
>>>> ret = irq_bypass_register_producer(&vdev->ctx[vector].producer);
>>>> if (unlikely(ret))
>>>> dev_info(&pdev->dev,
>>>> "irq bypass producer (token %p) registration fails: %d\n",
>>>> vdev->ctx[vector].producer.token, ret);
>>>>
>>> I know this code already existed, but again this looks inconsistent. If the
>>> registration fails then a subsequent update will try to unregister a not
>>> registered producer. Does not make any sense to me.
>>>
>> irq_bypass_register_producer() also fails on duplicated registration, so maybe an unconditional try to
>>
>> unregistration is a easy way to keep consistent.
>>
>> Maybe it's better to change these function names to irq_bypass_try_register_producer() and
>>
>> irq_bypass_try_unregister_producer() :)
>>
>>
> Hi Ben,
> The point is that we shouldn’t blindly try to register again if we fails to unregister a posted interrupt producer. By this way, the fast path (posted interrupt) may get disabled, but it’s safer than blindly ignoring the failure of ungistration.
> Thanks,
> Gerry
This may need another patchset to enhance the irq_bypass
register/unregister functions first, at least to return some error code
when irq_bypass_try_unregister_producer() fails. I would like to have a
try later.
Thanks,
Ben
Powered by blists - more mailing lists