lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] kvm: enable irq injection from interrupt context
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 04:23:35PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > There is no such thing as device's line status on real hardware, either.
> > > > > Devices do not drive INT# high: they drive it low (all the time)
> > > > > or do not drive it at all.
> > > > Same thing, other naming. Device either drive it low (irq_set(1)) or
> > > > not (irq_set(0)).
> > >
> > > Well, if I drive it low any number of times it should hae no effect.
> > >
> > There is no meaning of "driving low the line multiple times" on real HW.
> > You either drive it low or not. We try to emulate this with individual
> > "drive low/high" events in software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or consider express, the spec explicitly says:
> > > > > "Note: Duplicate Assert_INTx/Deassert_INTx Messages have no effect, but
>
> Express has assert and deassert messages. It might be easier for
> you to think in these terms. level 1: assert, level 0: deassert.
> Seems a simple model and what we do models this pretty well.
>
They are between device and pci controller. I am talking about what
happens between pci controller and irq chip. We are talking about
different things really.
> > > > > are not errors."
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another application is out of process virtio (sandboxing!).
> > > > > > > > It will still assert and de-assert irq at the same code, so it will be
> > > > > > > > able to track irq line status.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, pci stuff needs to stay in qemu.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nothing to do with PCI whatsoever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [0] most qemu devices behave incorrectly and trigger level irq more then
> > > > > > > > needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which devices?
> > > > > > Most of them. They just call update_irq_status() or something and
> > > > > > re-assert interrupt regardless of what previous status was.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least for PCI devices, these calls do nothing if status does not change.
> > > > I am not sure what code are you locking at. e1000 device emulation
> > > > doesn't check previous line status before calling qemu_set_irq().
> > >
> > > Right. If you dig through useless levels of indirection, you will
> > > see that each PCI device has 4 pin levels, when one of these
> > > changes this makes it up level to the parent bus, and so on.
> > Yes. Qemu PCI level does it right. Ideally device would not even invoke
> > this logic if interrupt status haven't changed.
>
> It needs to call *some* function to check status
> and assert, right? qemu_set_irq is that function.
qemu_set_irq does not check previous level and calls a callback
unconditionally.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > pci core tracks line status and will never assert the same
> > > > > > > line multiple times.
> > > > > > That's good if pci core does this, but device shouldn't even try it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I disagree. We don't want to duplicate a ton of code all over
> > > > > the codebase.
> > > > >
> > > > So abstract it into a function. It shouldn't be part of PCI emulation.
> > >
> > > I don't know what you mean by this, send a patch and we can discuss?
> > I don't care enough to send patch. Just remember previous irq status
> > and do not call qemu_set_irq() if it doesn't change. Three lines of
> > code.
>
> Heh, we have a ton of devices to support.
So?

> And then we need to migrate this extra status, and make sure it's in
> sync with PCI code. We'll end up with much more more than 3 lines all
> of it in a very sensitive and hard to test parts code.
>
You should be able to reconstruct it from device state. What should be
in sync with PCI code?

> > > Note that when I patches PCI interrupt handling for compliance
> > > I made it mimic hardware as closely as possible: devices
> > > can send any # of assert/deassert messages, bus discards duplicates.
> > >
> > Qemu PCI code is correct as far as I can see. Not all devices are connected
> > via PCI and there is not need to go through couple of layer of
> > indirection to figure out that nothing should be done.
> >
>
> If we want to remove the indirection I would be much more
> interested to remove it for all cases, not just when
> nothing should be done.
I don't care. This indirection may be justified for all I know. You try to
shift this discussion to areas I am not interested to look into :) All I
am saying is that each device is capable of knowing its current irq line
state and optimize out function call + additional logic. Whether upper
layer should handle two asserts without de-assert in between is different
point and I think we agree on it.

>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] this is how correct PCI device should behave but we override
> > > > > > > > polarity in ACPI, but now incorrect behaviour is deeply designed
> > > > > > > > into vhost-net.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not really, vhost net signals an eventfd. What happens then is
> > > > > > > up to kvm.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > That is what current broken design does and it works, but if you want to
> > > > > > save unneeded calls into kvm fix design.
> > > > >
> > > > > The interface seems clean enough: vhost handles virtio ring, qemu/kvm handle pci.
> > > > > Making vhost aware of pci breaks this, I would not call that fixing the
> > > > > design.
> > > > >
> > > > Once again. Nothing to do with PCI, everything to do with device
> > > > emulation. And I propose to abstract interrupt assertion part into
> > > > irqfd, not into vhost.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Gleb.
> > >
> > > This could work. KVM would need to find all irqfd
> > > objects mapped to gsi and notify them on deassert.
> > > No idea how hard this is.
> > >
> > What for? Device emulation should do de-assert.
>
> Sorry, but at this point I have no idea what you call device emulation.
The same thing everyone calls device emulation. In case of virtio-net it
is in hw/virtio-net.c. If vhost-net is in use device emulation is split
between userspace and kernel, but it is still just device emulation.

> qemu has code to de-assert. vhost has code to assert.
Good. So qemu will de-assert. So what do you mean by
"KVM would need to find all irqfd objects mapped to gsi and notify
them on deassert"

> I would like to optimize level interrupts and stop driving
> scheduler insane if at all possible.
>
Worthy goal. Do it in irqfd. Irqfd shouldn't call kvm_set_irq() if irq
level hasn't changed.

--
Gleb.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-16 16:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans