From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Tom Lyon <pugs@ieee.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] genirq: Inform handler about line sharing state
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:06:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D0B8A73.4050005@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1012171315260.12146@localhost6.localdomain6>
Am 17.12.2010 16:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Am 17.12.2010 11:41, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> Am 17.12.2010 11:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>> OTOH, if we have to disable anyway, then we could simply keep it
>>>>> disabled across the installation of a new handler. That would make the
>>>>> notification business go away, wouldn't it ?
>>>>
>>>> No, the notification is still necessary in case the registered handler
>>>> keeps the line off after returning from both hard and threaded handler.
>>>
>>> And how should that happen? If it is in oneshot mode then the line is
>>> reenabled when the thread handler returns.
>>
>> disable_irq_nosync is called by the handler before returning. And it's
>> the handler's job to revert this, properly synchronizing it internally.
>
> disable_irq_nosync() is really the worst thing to do. That's simply
> not going to work without a lot of fuglyness.
>
> What about the following:
>
> primary_handler(....)
> {
> if (!shared)
> return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
>
> spin_lock(dev->irq_lock);
>
> if (from_my_device() || dev->irq_thread_waiting) {
> mask_dev();
> dev->masked = true;
> ret = IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> } else
> ret = IRQ_NONE;
>
> spin_unlock(dev->irq_lock);
> return ret;
> }
>
> check_timeout()
> {
> if (dev->irq_active && wait_longer())
> return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD;
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
>
> unmask_dev_if_necessary()
> {
> if (dev->masked && dev->irq_active)
> umask_dev();
> }
>
> threaded_handler(....)
> {
> if (!dev->irq_thread_waiting) {
> spin_lock_irq(dev->irq_lock);
> wake_user = do_magic_stuff_with_the_dev();
> dev->irq_thread_waiting = wake_user;
> spin_unlock(dev->irq_lock);
> if (wake_user)
> wake_up(user);
> }
>
> if (!dev->irq_thread_waiting) {
> spin_lock_irq(dev->irq_lock);
> unmask_dev_if_necessary();
> spin_unlock(dev->irq_lock);
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
>
> /*
> * Wait for user space to complete. Timeout is to
> * avoid starvation of the irq line when
> * something goes wrong
> */
> wait_for_completion_timeout(dev->compl, SENSIBLE_TIMEOUT);
>
> spin_lock_irq(dev->irq_lock);
> if (timedout) {
> mask_dev();
> dev->masked = true;
> /*
> * Leave dev->irq_thread_waiting untouched and let
> * the core code reschedule us when check_timeout
> * decides it's worth to wait. In any case we leave
> * the device masked at the device level, so we don't
> * cause an interrupt storm.
> */
> ret = check_timeout();
> } else {
> unmask_dev_if_necessary();
> dev->irq_thread_waiting = false;
> ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
> spin_unlock(dev->irq_lock);
> return ret;
> }
>
> userspace_complete()
> {
> complete(dev->irq_compl);
> }
>
> Your aproach with disable_irq_nosync() is completely flawed, simply
> because you try to pretend that your interrupt handler is done, while
> it is not done at all. The threaded interrupt handler is done when
> user space completes. Everything else is just hacking around the
> problem and creates all that nasty transitional problems.
disable_irq_nosync is the pattern currently used in KVM, it's nothing
new in fact.
The approach looks interesting but requires separate code for
non-PCI-2.3 devices, i.e. when we have no means to mask at device level.
Further drawbacks - unless I missed something on first glance:
- prevents any future optimizations that would work without IRQ thread
ping-pong (ie. once we allow guest IRQ injection from hardirq context
for selected but typical setups)
- two additional, though light-weight, context switches on each
interrupt completion
- continuous polling if user space decides to leave the interrupt
unhandled (e.g. because the virtual IRQ line is masked)
Maybe the latter can be solved in a nicer way, but I don't think we can
avoid the first two. I'm not saying yet that they are killing this
approach, we just need to asses their relevance.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-17 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-13 22:59 [PATCH v3 0/4] KVM & genirq: Enable adaptive IRQ sharing for passed-through devices Jan Kiszka
2010-12-13 22:59 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] genirq: Introduce driver-readable IRQ status word Jan Kiszka
2010-12-14 20:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-14 23:10 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-12-13 22:59 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] genirq: Inform handler about line sharing state Jan Kiszka
2010-12-14 20:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-14 23:00 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-12-15 13:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-15 14:18 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-12-15 14:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-15 15:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-15 15:49 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-12-15 16:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-14 21:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-14 23:01 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-12-15 8:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-15 9:37 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-12-15 9:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-16 13:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-16 20:26 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-12-16 21:28 ` change of email address: pugs@cisco.com -> pugs@ieee.org Tom Lyon
2010-12-17 8:18 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] genirq: Inform handler about line sharing state Jan Kiszka
2010-12-17 10:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-17 10:31 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-12-17 10:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-17 10:48 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-12-17 15:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-17 16:06 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2010-12-17 16:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-18 18:11 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2010-12-13 22:59 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] genirq: Add support for IRQF_COND_ONESHOT Jan Kiszka
2010-12-13 22:59 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] KVM: Allow host IRQ sharing for passed-through PCI 2.3 devices Jan Kiszka
2010-12-14 8:53 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] KVM & genirq: Enable adaptive IRQ sharing for passed-through devices Avi Kivity
2010-12-14 22:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D0B8A73.4050005@siemens.com \
--to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@web.de \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=pugs@ieee.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.