Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/events: fix unmask_evtchn for PV on HVMguests

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 06:48:35PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 05:26:07PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > When unmask_evtchn is called, if we already have an event pending, we
> > > just set evtchn_pending_sel waiting for local_irq_enable to be called.
> > > That is because PV guests set the irq_enable pvops to
> > 
> > Can you point out where the PV guests do that please? Even just
> > including a snippet of code would be nice so that somebody
> > in the future has an idea of where it was/is.
> 
> Do you mean where PV guests set the irq_enable pvop?
> 
> That would be in xen_setup_vcpu_info_placement.
> irq_enable is set to xen_irq_enable_direct that is implemented in
> assembly in arch/x86/xen/xen-asm.S: it tests for XEN_vcpu_info_pending
> and call xen_force_evtchn_callback.

Excellent. Pls include that comment in the git commit.

> 
> 
> > > xen_irq_enable_direct that also handles pending events.
> > > 
> > > However HVM guests (and ARM guests) do not change or do not have the
> > > irq_enable pvop, so evtchn_unmask cannot work properly for them.
> > 
> > Duh!
> > > 
> > > Considering that having the pending_irq bit set when unmask_evtchn is
> > > called is not very common, and it is simpler to keep the
> > 
> > Unless you pin the guests on the vCPUS on which domain0 is not present..
> 
> Considering that __xen_evtchn_do_upcall keeps looping around until no
> more events are set in the shared_info page and also that
> xen_dynamic_chip and xen_pirq_chip only mask irqs on irq_mask, the only
> way that pending_irq can be set before unmask_evtchn is called is when
> the guest receives multiple notifications for the same event before
> acking the first one.
> Arguably it is not a extremely common case at least in domUs.
> 
> 
> > > native_irq_enable implementation for HVM guests (and ARM guests), the
> > > best thing to do is just use the EVTCHNOP_unmask hypercall (Xen
> > > re-injects pending events in response).
> > 
> > And by re-injects you mean than the IOAPIC or (whatever it is on ARM)
> > is armed to show that there is a pending interrupt, right?
> 
> Right. A new notification is going to be sent by Xen to the guest, via
> the best mechanism available. On X86 it could be a vector callback.
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/xen/events.c |    7 +++++--
> > >  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
> > > index eae0d0b..0132505 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/xen/events.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
> > > @@ -372,8 +372,11 @@ static void unmask_evtchn(int port)
> > >  
> > >  	BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> > >  
> > > -	/* Slow path (hypercall) if this is a non-local port. */
> > > -	if (unlikely(cpu != cpu_from_evtchn(port))) {
> > > +	/* Slow path (hypercall) if this is a non-local port or if this is
> > > +	 * an hvm domain and an event is pending (hvm domains don't have
> > > +	 * their own implementation of irq_enable). */
> > > +	if (unlikely((cpu != cpu_from_evtchn(port)) ||
> > > +			(xen_hvm_domain() && sync_test_bit(port, &s->evtchn_pending[0])))) {
> > >  		struct evtchn_unmask unmask = { .port = port };
> > 
> > We already have two seperate acks - for when there is an GMFN APIC bitmap and
> > when there is not. Can we also have to seperate unmask_evtchn then? And
> > just have the HVM and ARM just do a straightforward unmaks_evtchn while
> > the PV remains the same?
> 
> Do you mean HVM and ARM do a straightforward EVTCHNOP_unmask hypercall?

I was thinking of some way to lessen the impact of the 'if (..)'  statement.
There is already a check from the cpu, and now there is a bit check
and another check for domain. Was wondering if it would make more sense
to abstract the code the unmask_evtchn calls, and provide two variants
of the unmask_evtchn: a one that is mostly called on PV/PVHVM on x86 and
then the ARM version?

Or won't that really give us any performance benefits and that
extra check for hvm_domain and test_bit is negligible?

Perhaps a better question is - do you have further plans for this
function? As in expanding it with more 'if' conditionals?

> 
> In that case we would lose performances because most of the time an
> hypercall won't be necessary.
> If we keep the code as it is, it makes sense to have the PV and PVHVM
> cases in the same function.

The two things that roam my mind is:
 - performance impact
 - code readability.

Granted this code is the slow patch so maybe the performance part is
not an issue. But that 'sync_test_bit' isn't that an atomic locked
call so it flushes the bus? There is a 'xen_hvm_domain()' condition
before it so that does lessen the impact to be only done on HVM.

If we do run this under HVM, we would do:
 1) cpu == cpu_from_evtchn, so 
 2).sync_test_bit .. say it returns false
 3). sync_clear_bit
 4). sync_test_bit on the same word that 2) was done.

If this was re-organized a bit differently could we remove 2)
out of the picture so that under HVM we just do 1) 3) and 4) ?

And for that we might have to have two implementations of unmaks_evtchn - were
both of them might call the same underlaying functions that do the
bit-operations, but the 'if' conditionals are differently organized.
Or is this scenario really unlikely and I am just thinking to hard about this?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/