Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/5] xen: events: use irq_alloc_desc(_at) instead of open-coding an IRQ allocator.

Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-10-26T16:44:55Z

On 10/26/2010 07:17 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 04:03:19PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 10/25/2010 10:35 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 05:23:29PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>> Encapsulate allocate and free in xen_irq_alloc and xen_irq_free.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/xen/events.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
>>>> 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/events.c b/drivers/xen/events.c
>>>> index 97612f5..c8f3e43 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/xen/events.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/events.c
>>>> @@ -394,41 +394,29 @@ static int find_unbound_pirq(void)
>>>> return -1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static int find_unbound_irq(void)
>>>> +static int xen_irq_alloc(void)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct irq_data *data;
>>>> - int irq, res;
>>>> - int start = get_nr_hw_irqs();
>>>> + int irq = irq_alloc_desc(0);
>>>>
>>>> - if (start == nr_irqs)
>>>> - goto no_irqs;
>>>> -
>>>> - /* nr_irqs is a magic value. Must not use it.*/
>>>> - for (irq = nr_irqs-1; irq > start; irq--) {
>>>> - data = irq_get_irq_data(irq);
>>>> - /* only 0->15 have init'd desc; handle irq > 16 */
>>>> - if (!data)
>>>> - break;
>>>> - if (data->chip == &no_irq_chip)
>>>> - break;
>>>> - if (data->chip != &xen_dynamic_chip)
>>>> - continue;
>>>> - if (irq_info[irq].type == IRQT_UNBOUND)
>>>> - return irq;
>>>> - }
>>>> -
>>>> - if (irq == start)
>>>> - goto no_irqs;
>>>> + if (irq < 0)
>>>> + panic("No available IRQ to bind to: increase nr_irqs!\n");
>>>>
>>>> - res = irq_alloc_desc_at(irq, 0);
>>>> + return irq;
>>>> +}
>>> So I am curious what the /proc/interrupts looks?The issue (and the reason
>>> for this implementation above) was that under PV with PCI devices we would
>>> overlap PCI devices IRQs with Xen event channels. So we could have a USB device
>>> at IRQ 16 _and_ also a xen_spinlock4 handler. That would throw off the system
>>> since the xen_spinlock4 was an edge type handler while the USB device was an
>>> level (at least on my box).
>> What? Why? How? Surely if we're asking the irq subsystem to allocate
> Imagine a PV guest with PCI passthrough. Normally the first 16 IRQs
> are reserved for "legacy" devices. And the IRQs after that are up for grabs.
>
> Since the Xen event channels are initialized much much earlier than
> any PCI devices, they end up using the IRQs right after 16 -which is OK
> if you don't have any PCI devices. If you have a PCI device that is
> using IRQ 17 it ends up colliding with an event channel.

Well, only because of the general tendency to try and allocate
irq==gsi. If we don't care about that (and we don't particularly) then
we can allocate any irq we like and map it to any gsi/pirq. In fact,
Stefano's series explicitly implements this.

> Now, I have to confess I did not look carefully at the sparse_irq rework
> so it might be that the IRQ numbur is not as important as it was
> before 2.6.37.

It was never very important. There was just a general policy to try and
keep the irq for a device the same as it would be for native. But
that's probably only slightly relevant for dom0 and completely fictional
for domU w/ passthrough.

>> us an irq, it will return a fresh never-before-used (and certainly not
>> shared) irq? Shared irqs only make sense if multiple devices are
>> actually sharing, say, a wire on the board.
> Right, and in this case we end up trying to use the IRQ for a physical
> device and find out that the IRQ has/is being aleady used for an
> event channel.

In that case we should use dynamic allocation for everything. Or try to
work out distinct irq ranges for different interrupts if you really want
to keep irq==gsi.

>> Or am I missing something?
> Event channels are allocated before PCI devices so they get to usurp
> the IRQ chip for the IRQ that belongs to the PCI device.
>
> Keep in mind that this is not possible under Dom0, as we have the
> IOAPIC information, so we know that IRQ0-48 are reserved for GSI's
> for three of the IOAPIC. In PV with PCI passthrough such information
> is not present and the kernel assumes no IOAPICs, and hence no
> GSI.
>
> a). Maybe one way to do this is set the GSI high watermark to be the
> same as the host (so move it from the legacy IRQ 16 to 48 for example).
> This would require fiddling with the shared_info structure..
>
> b) Another approach was to allocate event-channel IRQs and virtual IRQs
> from the highest available IRQ and continue down . Physical IRQs would be
> allocated from the legacy IRQ up to whatever is available.
>
> c) 2.6.18 kernels made a division right at 255, so anything under 255 was to be
> used for physical IRQs, while anything above that for event channels and
> vitual IRQs.

d) dynamically allocate all irqs for all event channel types.

J