lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] xen: reuse the same pirq allocated when driver load first time
    On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 06:24:46PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
    > On Mon, 13 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
    > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:50:52PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
    > > > On Mon, 13 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
    > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:06:43PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
    > > > > > On Fri, 10 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
    > > > > > > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 04:18:24PM +0800, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
    > > > > > > > When driver load and unload in a loop, pirq will exhaust finally.
    > > > > > > > Try to use the same pirq which was already mapped and binded at first time
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > So what happens if I unload and reload two drivers in random order?
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > when driver loaded.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Read pirq from msix entry and test if data is XEN_PIRQ_MSI_DATA
    > > > > > > > xen_irq_from_pirq(pirq) < 0 checking is wrong as irq will be freed
    > > > > > > > when driver unload, it's always true in second load.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > If my understanding is right the issue at hand is that the caching
    > > > > > > information about the pirq disappears once the driver has been
    > > > > > > unloaded b/c the event's irq-info is removed (as the driver is
    > > > > > > unloaded and free_irq is called).
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Stefano,
    > > > > > > Is there a specific write to the MSI structure that would cause the
    > > > > > > hypervisor to drop the PIRQ? Or a nice hypercall to "free" an
    > > > > > > PIRQ in usage?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > We already have a "free PIRQ" hypercall, it's called
    > > > > > PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq and should be called by QEMU.
    > > > >
    > > > > Considering that we call function that allocates (PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq)
    > > > > it in the Linux kernel (and not in QEMU), perhaps that should be done in the
    > > > > Linux kernel as part of xen_destroy_irq()? Or would that confuse QEMU?
    > > >
    > > > I think it would confuse QEMU. It is probably better to let the unmap
    > > > being handled by it.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > It looks like QEMU only does that hypercall (via xc_physdev_unmap_pirq)
    > > > > unregister_real_device which is only called during pci unplug?
    > > >
    > > > You are right! I would think that this behaviour is erroneous unless it
    > > > was done on purpose to avoid allocating MSIs twice.
    > > > If that is the case we would need to do something similar in Linux too.
    > > >
    > > > I think that the issue is the mismatch between QEMU's and Linux's
    > > > behaviours: either both should be allocating MSIs once, or they should
    > > > both be allocating and deallocating MSIs every time the driver is loaded
    > > > and unloaded.
    > >
    > > Right. But we also have the scenario that QEMU and Linux are going to
    > > be out of sync. So we need fixes in both places - I think.
    >
    > QEMU is the owner of the pirq, in fact it is the one that creates and
    > destroys the mapping. I think that the right place to fix this problem
    > is in QEMU, the ABI would be much cleaner as a result. As a side effect
    > we don't need to make any changes in Linux.

    You do. You need to remove the PHYSDEVOP_get_free_pirq call in that case.
    >
    > > >
    > > > > > Linux should disable the MSI bit in the PCI config options of the
    > > > > > device:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > pci_disable_msi -> pci_msi_shutdown -> msi_set_enable(0)
    > > > >
    > > > > Zhenzhong, does it do that? Looking at the driver it certainly seems that way.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > That should cause QEMU to issue a xc_physdev_unmap_pirq that actually
    > > > > > unmaps the pirq. If it doesn't, it's a bug :)
    > > > >
    > > > > <sigh> It doesn't do that. So two bugs:
    > > > > - QEMU doing that
    > > > > - Linux kernel doing the hypercall as well.
    > > >
    > > > At first sight I also thought that the Linux kernel was issuing
    > > > PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq too but actually Linux is only doing it if
    > > > xen_initial_domain().
    > >
    > > That seems like an easy fix. Just do 'if (xen_initial_domain()
    > > || xen_hvm_domain())'. I think the only one we cannot do it for
    > > is 'xen_pv_domain()' (so PCI in PV guests) as the "owner" of the PIRQ is
    > > actually dom0.
    >
    > We could do that and it might be easier than changing QEMU, but I think
    > it would be more clear and consistent if QEMU was the one to do the
    > unmapping.

    And allocating the PIRQ?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-05-13 20:41    [W:5.411 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site