[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] xen/events: bug fixes and some diagnostic aids
On 08.02.21 15:20, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
> On 08/02/2021 13:58, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> On 08.02.21 14:09, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Juergen,
>>> On 08/02/2021 12:31, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>> On 08.02.21 13:16, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>> On 08/02/2021 12:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>>>> On 08.02.21 11:40, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Juergen,
>>>>>>> On 08/02/2021 10:22, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08.02.21 10:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ... I don't really see how the difference matter here. The idea
>>>>>>>>> is to re-use what's already existing rather than trying to
>>>>>>>>> re-invent the wheel with an extra lock (or whatever we can come
>>>>>>>>> up).
>>>>>>>> The difference is that the race is occurring _before_ any IRQ is
>>>>>>>> involved. So I don't see how modification of IRQ handling would
>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>> Roughly our current IRQ handling flow (handle_eoi_irq()) looks like:
>>>>>>> if ( irq in progress )
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    set IRQS_PENDING
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    clear IRQS_PENDING
>>>>>>>    handle_irq()
>>>>>>> } while (IRQS_PENDING is set)
>>>>>>> IRQ handling flow like handle_fasteoi_irq() looks like:
>>>>>>> if ( irq in progress )
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> handle_irq()
>>>>>>> The latter flow would catch "spurious" interrupt and ignore them.
>>>>>>> So it would handle nicely the race when changing the event affinity.
>>>>>> Sure? Isn't "irq in progress" being reset way before our "lateeoi" is
>>>>>> issued, thus having the same problem again?
>>>>> Sorry I can't parse this.
>>>> handle_fasteoi_irq() will do nothing "if ( irq in progress )". When is
>>>> this condition being reset again in order to be able to process another
>>>> IRQ?
>>> It is reset after the handler has been called. See handle_irq_event().
>> Right. And for us this is too early, as we want the next IRQ being
>> handled only after we have called xen_irq_lateeoi().
> It is not really the next IRQ here. It is more a spurious IRQ because we
> don't clear & mask the event right away. Instead, it is done later in
> the handling.
>>>> I believe this will be the case before our "lateeoi" handling is
>>>> becoming active (more precise: when our IRQ handler is returning to
>>>> handle_fasteoi_irq()), resulting in the possibility of the same race we
>>>> are experiencing now.
>>> I am a bit confused what you mean by "lateeoi" handling is becoming
>>> active. Can you clarify?
>> See above: the next call of the handler should be allowed only after
>> xen_irq_lateeoi() for the IRQ has been called.
>> If the handler is being called earlier we have the race resulting
>> in the WARN() splats.
> I feel it is dislike to understand race with just words. Can you provide
> a scenario (similar to the one I originally provided) with two vCPUs and
> show how this can happen?

vCPU0 | vCPU1
| Call xen_rebind_evtchn_to_cpu()
receive event X |
| mask event X
| bind to vCPU1
<vCPU descheduled> | unmask event X
| receive event X
| handle_fasteoi_irq(X)
| -> handle_irq_event()
| -> evtchn_interrupt()
| -> evtchn->enabled = false
-> evtchn_interrupt()|
-> WARN() |
| xen_irq_lateeoi(X)

>>> Note that are are other IRQ flows existing. We should have a look at
>>> them before trying to fix thing ourself.
>> Fine with me, but it either needs to fit all use cases (interdomain,
>> IPI, real interrupts) or we need to have a per-type IRQ flow.
> AFAICT, we already used different flow based on the use cases. Before
> 2011, we used to use the fasteoi one but this was changed by the
> following commit:

Yes, I know that.

>> I think we should fix the issue locally first, then we can start to do
>> a thorough rework planning. Its not as if the needed changes with the
>> current flow would be so huge, and I'd really like to have a solution
>> rather sooner than later. Changing the IRQ flow might have other side
>> effects which need to be excluded by thorough testing.
> I agree that we need a solution ASAP. But I am a bit worry to:
>   1) Add another lock in that event handling path.

Regarding complexity: it is very simple (just around masking/unmasking
of the event channel). Contention is very unlikely.

>   2) Add more complexity in the event handling (it is already fairly
> difficult to reason about the locking/race)
> Let see what the local fix look like.


>>> Although, the other issue I can see so far is handle_irq_for_port()
>>> will update info->{eoi_cpu, irq_epoch, eoi_time} without any locking.
>>> But it is not clear this is what you mean by "becoming active".
>> As long as a single event can't be handled on multiple cpus at the same
>> time, there is no locking needed.
> Well, it can happen in the current code (see my original scenario). If
> your idea fix it then fine.

I hope so.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 15:54    [W:0.085 / U:2.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site