From: "tiejun.chen" <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: agraf@suse.de, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 02:43:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51886A59.80807@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1367892390.3398.12@snotra>
On 05/07/2013 10:06 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 08:56:25 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
>> On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>>>>> For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
>>>>> excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as host
>>>>> interrupt handlers since the DO_KVM hook is always performed to skip
>>>>> EXCEPTION_COMMON then miss this original chance with the 'ints'
>>>>> (INTS_DISABLE).
>>>
>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/241344/
>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/241412/
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> I'm observing the same behaviour as well:
>>
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
>
> So, could you explain the benefits of your approach over what's being discussed
> in those threads?
They're a long thread so I think I need to take time to see :)
>
>>> Why wouldn't we always disable them? kvmppc_handle_exit() will enable
>>> interrupts when it's ready.
>>
>> This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that restarts
>> interrupts if they were meant for the host:
>>
>> a. SOFT_DISABLE_INTS() only for BOOKE_INTERRUPT_EXTERNAL |
>> BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DECREMENTER | BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DOORBELL
>
> Those aren't the only exceptions that can end up going to the host. We could
> get a TLB miss that results in a heavyweight MMIO exit, etc.
This is like host handler, so I'm just disabling soft interrupt during
kvmppc_restart_interrupt() for Doorbell interrupt/Decrementer Interrupt/External
Input Interrupt.
I don't see anything should be disabled for any TLB exception in host handler.
>
> And I'd rather see any fix for this problem stay out of the asm code.
We already have an appropriate SOFT_DISABLE_INTS so I think we can take this
easily :)
>
>> b. bl kvmppc_handle_exit
>>
>> c. kvmppc_handle_exit()
>> {
>> int r = RESUME_HOST;
>> int s;
>>
>> /* update before a new last_exit_type is rewritten */
>> kvmppc_update_timing_stats(vcpu);
>>
>> /* restart interrupts if they were meant for the host */
>> kvmppc_restart_interrupt(vcpu, exit_nr);
>>
>> local_irq_enable(); => Enable again.
>> ....
>>
>> And shouldn't we handle kvmppc_restart_interrupt() like the original HOST flow?
>>
>> #define MASKABLE_EXCEPTION(trapnum, intnum, label, hdlr, ack) \
>> START_EXCEPTION(label); \
>> NORMAL_EXCEPTION_PROLOG(trapnum, intnum, PROLOG_ADDITION_MASKABLE)\
>> EXCEPTION_COMMON(trapnum, PACA_EXGEN, *INTS_DISABLE*) \
>> ...
>
> Could you elaborate on what you mean?
In host handler, we always use MASKABLE_EXCEPTION() to define-to-handle some
exceptions: Doorbell interrupt/Decrementer Interrupt/External Input Interrupt:
#define MASKABLE_EXCEPTION(trapnum, intnum, label, hdlr, ack) \
START_EXCEPTION(label); \
NORMAL_EXCEPTION_PROLOG(trapnum, intnum, PROLOG_ADDITION_MASKABLE)\
EXCEPTION_COMMON(trapnum, PACA_EXGEN, *INTS_DISABLE*) \
This would call INTS_DISABLE, which is equal to SOFT_DISABLE_INTS(), to disable
soft interrupt before call all associated handlers:
do_IRQ()/timer_interrupt()/doorbell_exception().
But DO_KVM hook always skips INTS_DISABLE.
So I think we also need to do INTS_DISABLE for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() since
actually that restarts interrupts for the host with a similar way as they are
called by host.
Tiejun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "tiejun.chen" <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, agraf@suse.de,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 10:43:37 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51886A59.80807@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1367892390.3398.12@snotra>
On 05/07/2013 10:06 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 08:56:25 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
>> On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>>>>> For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
>>>>> excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as host
>>>>> interrupt handlers since the DO_KVM hook is always performed to skip
>>>>> EXCEPTION_COMMON then miss this original chance with the 'ints'
>>>>> (INTS_DISABLE).
>>>
>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/241344/
>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/241412/
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> I'm observing the same behaviour as well:
>>
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
>
> So, could you explain the benefits of your approach over what's being discussed
> in those threads?
They're a long thread so I think I need to take time to see :)
>
>>> Why wouldn't we always disable them? kvmppc_handle_exit() will enable
>>> interrupts when it's ready.
>>
>> This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that restarts
>> interrupts if they were meant for the host:
>>
>> a. SOFT_DISABLE_INTS() only for BOOKE_INTERRUPT_EXTERNAL |
>> BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DECREMENTER | BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DOORBELL
>
> Those aren't the only exceptions that can end up going to the host. We could
> get a TLB miss that results in a heavyweight MMIO exit, etc.
This is like host handler, so I'm just disabling soft interrupt during
kvmppc_restart_interrupt() for Doorbell interrupt/Decrementer Interrupt/External
Input Interrupt.
I don't see anything should be disabled for any TLB exception in host handler.
>
> And I'd rather see any fix for this problem stay out of the asm code.
We already have an appropriate SOFT_DISABLE_INTS so I think we can take this
easily :)
>
>> b. bl kvmppc_handle_exit
>>
>> c. kvmppc_handle_exit()
>> {
>> int r = RESUME_HOST;
>> int s;
>>
>> /* update before a new last_exit_type is rewritten */
>> kvmppc_update_timing_stats(vcpu);
>>
>> /* restart interrupts if they were meant for the host */
>> kvmppc_restart_interrupt(vcpu, exit_nr);
>>
>> local_irq_enable(); ==> Enable again.
>> ....
>>
>> And shouldn't we handle kvmppc_restart_interrupt() like the original HOST flow?
>>
>> #define MASKABLE_EXCEPTION(trapnum, intnum, label, hdlr, ack) \
>> START_EXCEPTION(label); \
>> NORMAL_EXCEPTION_PROLOG(trapnum, intnum, PROLOG_ADDITION_MASKABLE)\
>> EXCEPTION_COMMON(trapnum, PACA_EXGEN, *INTS_DISABLE*) \
>> ...
>
> Could you elaborate on what you mean?
In host handler, we always use MASKABLE_EXCEPTION() to define-to-handle some
exceptions: Doorbell interrupt/Decrementer Interrupt/External Input Interrupt:
#define MASKABLE_EXCEPTION(trapnum, intnum, label, hdlr, ack) \
START_EXCEPTION(label); \
NORMAL_EXCEPTION_PROLOG(trapnum, intnum, PROLOG_ADDITION_MASKABLE)\
EXCEPTION_COMMON(trapnum, PACA_EXGEN, *INTS_DISABLE*) \
This would call INTS_DISABLE, which is equal to SOFT_DISABLE_INTS(), to disable
soft interrupt before call all associated handlers:
do_IRQ()/timer_interrupt()/doorbell_exception().
But DO_KVM hook always skips INTS_DISABLE.
So I think we also need to do INTS_DISABLE for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() since
actually that restarts interrupts for the host with a similar way as they are
called by host.
Tiejun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "tiejun.chen" <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Cc: <agraf@suse.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
<kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 10:43:37 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51886A59.80807@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1367892390.3398.12@snotra>
On 05/07/2013 10:06 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 08:56:25 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
>> On 05/07/2013 07:50 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On 05/05/2013 10:13:17 PM, tiejun.chen wrote:
>>>> On 05/06/2013 11:10 AM, Tiejun Chen wrote:
>>>>> For the external interrupt, the decrementer exception and the doorbell
>>>>> excpetion, we also need to soft-disable interrupts while doing as host
>>>>> interrupt handlers since the DO_KVM hook is always performed to skip
>>>>> EXCEPTION_COMMON then miss this original chance with the 'ints'
>>>>> (INTS_DISABLE).
>>>
>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/241344/
>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/241412/
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> I'm observing the same behaviour as well:
>>
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
>
> So, could you explain the benefits of your approach over what's being discussed
> in those threads?
They're a long thread so I think I need to take time to see :)
>
>>> Why wouldn't we always disable them? kvmppc_handle_exit() will enable
>>> interrupts when it's ready.
>>
>> This only disable soft interrupt for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() that restarts
>> interrupts if they were meant for the host:
>>
>> a. SOFT_DISABLE_INTS() only for BOOKE_INTERRUPT_EXTERNAL |
>> BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DECREMENTER | BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DOORBELL
>
> Those aren't the only exceptions that can end up going to the host. We could
> get a TLB miss that results in a heavyweight MMIO exit, etc.
This is like host handler, so I'm just disabling soft interrupt during
kvmppc_restart_interrupt() for Doorbell interrupt/Decrementer Interrupt/External
Input Interrupt.
I don't see anything should be disabled for any TLB exception in host handler.
>
> And I'd rather see any fix for this problem stay out of the asm code.
We already have an appropriate SOFT_DISABLE_INTS so I think we can take this
easily :)
>
>> b. bl kvmppc_handle_exit
>>
>> c. kvmppc_handle_exit()
>> {
>> int r = RESUME_HOST;
>> int s;
>>
>> /* update before a new last_exit_type is rewritten */
>> kvmppc_update_timing_stats(vcpu);
>>
>> /* restart interrupts if they were meant for the host */
>> kvmppc_restart_interrupt(vcpu, exit_nr);
>>
>> local_irq_enable(); ==> Enable again.
>> ....
>>
>> And shouldn't we handle kvmppc_restart_interrupt() like the original HOST flow?
>>
>> #define MASKABLE_EXCEPTION(trapnum, intnum, label, hdlr, ack) \
>> START_EXCEPTION(label); \
>> NORMAL_EXCEPTION_PROLOG(trapnum, intnum, PROLOG_ADDITION_MASKABLE)\
>> EXCEPTION_COMMON(trapnum, PACA_EXGEN, *INTS_DISABLE*) \
>> ...
>
> Could you elaborate on what you mean?
In host handler, we always use MASKABLE_EXCEPTION() to define-to-handle some
exceptions: Doorbell interrupt/Decrementer Interrupt/External Input Interrupt:
#define MASKABLE_EXCEPTION(trapnum, intnum, label, hdlr, ack) \
START_EXCEPTION(label); \
NORMAL_EXCEPTION_PROLOG(trapnum, intnum, PROLOG_ADDITION_MASKABLE)\
EXCEPTION_COMMON(trapnum, PACA_EXGEN, *INTS_DISABLE*) \
This would call INTS_DISABLE, which is equal to SOFT_DISABLE_INTS(), to disable
soft interrupt before call all associated handlers:
do_IRQ()/timer_interrupt()/doorbell_exception().
But DO_KVM hook always skips INTS_DISABLE.
So I think we also need to do INTS_DISABLE for kvmppc_restart_interrupt() since
actually that restarts interrupts for the host with a similar way as they are
called by host.
Tiejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-07 2:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-06 3:10 [RFC][KVM][PATCH 1/1] kvm:ppc:booke-64: soft-disable interrupts Tiejun Chen
2013-05-06 3:10 ` Tiejun Chen
2013-05-06 3:10 ` Tiejun Chen
2013-05-06 3:13 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-06 3:13 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-06 3:13 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-06 23:50 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-06 23:50 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-07 1:56 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-07 1:56 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-07 1:56 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-07 2:06 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-07 2:06 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-07 2:43 ` tiejun.chen [this message]
2013-05-07 2:43 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-07 2:43 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-07 3:04 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-07 3:04 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-08 13:14 ` Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
2013-05-08 13:14 ` Caraman Mihai Claudiu-B02008
2013-05-09 7:33 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 7:33 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 7:47 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 7:47 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 7:47 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 7:51 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 7:51 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 8:04 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 8:04 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 8:04 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 8:08 ` Kevin Hao
2013-05-09 8:08 ` Kevin Hao
2013-05-09 8:08 ` Kevin Hao
2013-05-09 8:12 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 8:12 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 8:17 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 8:17 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 8:17 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 8:26 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 8:26 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 8:21 ` Kevin Hao
2013-05-09 8:21 ` Kevin Hao
2013-05-09 8:21 ` Kevin Hao
2013-05-09 12:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 12:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 12:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 8:23 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 8:23 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 9:44 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 9:44 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 9:44 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 10:00 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 10:00 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 10:18 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 10:18 ` [RFC][PATCH " tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 10:18 ` [RFC][KVM][PATCH " tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 11:21 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 11:21 ` Bhushan Bharat-R65777
2013-05-09 11:35 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 11:35 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 11:35 ` tiejun.chen
2013-05-09 12:37 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 12:37 ` [RFC][PATCH " Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 12:37 ` [RFC][KVM][PATCH " Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 13:28 ` David Laight
2013-05-09 13:28 ` David Laight
2013-05-09 13:28 ` David Laight
2013-05-09 22:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 22:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 22:01 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 14:13 ` Chen, Tiejun
2013-05-09 14:13 ` Chen, Tiejun
2013-05-09 14:13 ` Chen, Tiejun
2013-05-09 21:27 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-09 21:27 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-09 22:07 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 22:07 ` [RFC][PATCH " Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 22:07 ` [RFC][KVM][PATCH " Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-09 22:13 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-09 22:13 ` Scott Wood
2013-05-10 14:12 ` Kevin Hao
2013-05-10 14:12 ` Kevin Hao
2013-05-10 14:12 ` Kevin Hao
2013-05-10 21:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-10 21:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-10 21:49 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-10 21:50 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2013-05-10 21:50 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
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=51886A59.80807@windriver.com \
--to=tiejun.chen@windriver.com \
--cc=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=scottwood@freescale.com \
/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.