RE: [v3 25/26] KVM: Suppress posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set

[Zhang, Yang Z]

Wu, Feng wrote on 2014-12-19:
> 
> 
> Zhang, Yang Z wrote on 2014-12-19:
>> Subject: RE: [v3 25/26] KVM: Suppress posted-interrupt when 'SN' is
>> set
>> 
>> Wu, Feng wrote on 2014-12-19:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> iommu-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on
>> mailto:iommu-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of:
>>>> Cc: iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>>> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: RE: [v3 25/26] KVM: Suppress posted-interrupt when 'SN'
>>>> is set
>>>> 
>>>> Paolo Bonzini wrote on 2014-12-18:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 18/12/2014 04:14, Wu, Feng wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on
>>>> mailto:linux-kernel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paolo:
>>>>>>> x86@xxxxxxxxxx; Gleb Natapov; Paolo Bonzini; dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>>>>>> joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+yROfE0A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Alex Williamson;
>>>>>>> joro-zLv9SwRftAIdnm+Jiang Liu Cc:
>>>>>>> iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>>>>>> linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; KVM list;
>>>>>>> Eric Auger Subject: Re: [v3 25/26] KVM: Suppress posted-interrupt
>>>>>>> when 'SN' is set
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 12/12/2014 16:14, Feng Wu wrote:
>>>>>>>> Currently, we don't support urgent interrupt, all interrupts
>>>>>>>> are recognized as non-urgent interrupt, so we cannot send
>>>>>>>> posted-interrupt when 'SN' is set.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can this happen?  If the vcpu is in guest mode, it cannot have
>>>>>>> been scheduled out, and that's the only case when SN is set.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Paolo
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Currently, the only place where SN is set is vCPU is preempted
>>>>>> and
>>>> 
>>>> If the vCPU is preempted, shouldn't the subsequent be ignored?
>>>> What happens if a PI is occurs when vCPU is preempted?
>>> 
>>> If a vCPU is preempted, the 'SN' bit is set, the subsequent
>>> interrupts are suppressed for posting.
>> 
>> I mean what happens if we don't set SN bit. From my point, if
>> preempter already disabled the interrupt, it is ok to leave SN bit
>> as zero. But if preempter enabled the interrupt, doesn't this mean
>> he allow interrupt to happen? BTW, since there already has ON bit,
>> so this means there only have one interrupt arrived at most and it
>> doesn't hurt performance. Do we really need to set SN bit?
> 
> 
> See this scenario:
> vCPU0 is running on pCPU0
> --> vCPU0 is preempted by vCPU1
> --> Then vCPU1 is running on pCPU0 and vCPU0 is waiting for schedule
> --> in runqueue
> 
> If the we don't set SN for vCPU0, then all subsequent interrupts for
> vCPU0 is posted to vCPU1, this will consume hardware and software

The PI vector for vCPU1 is notification vector, but the PI vector for vCPU0 should be wakeup vector. Why vCPU1 will consume this PI event?

> efforts and in fact it is not needed at all. If SN is set for vCPU0,
> VT-d hardware will not issue Notification Event for vCPU0 when an
> interrupt is for it, but just setting the related PIR bit.
> 
> Thanks,
> Feng
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Feng
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> waiting for the next scheduling in the runqueue. But I am not
>>>>>> sure whether we need to set SN for other purpose in future.
>>>>>> Adding SN checking here is just to follow the Spec. non-urgent
>>>>>> interrupts are suppressed
>>>>> when SN is set.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would change that to a WARN_ON_ONCE then.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Yang
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> iommu mailing list
>>>> iommu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Yang
>>


Best regards,
Yang


--
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/