lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: reuse the same pirq allocated when driver load first time
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > Looking at the hypervisor code I couldn't see anything obviously wrong.
>
> I think the culprit is "physdev_unmap_pirq":
>
> if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
> {
> spin_lock(&d->event_lock);
> gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,"d%d, pirq: %d is %x %s, irq: %d\n",
> d->domain_id, pirq, domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, pirq),
> domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, pirq) == IRQ_UNBOUND ? "unbound" : "",
> domain_pirq_to_irq(d, pirq));
>
> if ( domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, pirq) != IRQ_UNBOUND )
> ret = unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq(d, pirq);
> spin_unlock(&d->event_lock);
> if ( domid == DOMID_SELF || ret )
> goto free_domain;
>
> It always tells me unbound:
>
> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 54 is ffffffff
> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 53 is ffffffff
> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 52 is ffffffff
> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 51 is ffffffff
> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 50 is ffffffff
> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
> (a bit older debug code, so the 'unbound' does not show up here).
>
> Which means that the call to unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq does not happen.
> The checks in unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq also look to be depend
> on the code being IRQ_UNBOUND.
>
> In other words, all of that code looks to only clear things when
> they are !IRQ_UNBOUND.
>
> But the other logic (IRQ_UNBOUND) looks to be missing a removal
> in the radix tree:
>
> if ( emuirq != IRQ_PT )
> radix_tree_delete(&d->arch.hvm_domain.emuirq_pirq, emuirq);
>
> And I think that is what is causing the leak - the radix tree
> needs to be pruned? Or perhaps the allocate_pirq should check
> the radix tree for IRQ_UNBOUND ones and re-use them?

I think that you are looking in the wrong place.
The issue is that QEMU doesn't call pt_msi_disable in
pt_msgctrl_reg_write if (!val & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE).

The code above is correct as is because it is trying to handle emulated
IRQs and MSIs, not real passthrough MSIs. They latter are not added to
that radix tree, see physdev_hvm_map_pirq and physdev_map_pirq.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-21 19:01    [W:0.160 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site