public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"mtosatti@redhat.com" <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"yongjie.ren@intel.com" <yongjie.ren@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use IRQF_ONESHOT for assigned device MSI interrupts
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:03:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FD1B1DE.9080303@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120608080058.GB524@redhat.com>

On 2012-06-08 10:00, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 09:55:01AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-06-08 09:47, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 01:40:28PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/01/2012 09:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you suggesting we need a request_edge_threaded_only_irq() API?  Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm just wondering if that restriction for threaded IRQs is really
>>>>>>> necessary for all use cases we have. Threaded MSIs do not appear to me
>>>>>>> like have to be handled that conservatively, but maybe I'm missing some
>>>>>>> detail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> btw, I'm hoping we can unthread assigned MSIs.  If the delivery is
>>>>>> unicast, we can precalculate everything and all the handler has to do is
>>>>>> set the IRR, KVM_REQ_EVENT, and kick the vcpu.  All of these can be done
>>>>>> from interrupt context with just RCU locking.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is really no need to run MSI/MSI-X interrupts threaded for
>>>>> KVM. I'm running the patch below for quite some time and it works like
>>>>> a charm.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> 	tglx
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Index: linux-2.6/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- linux-2.6.orig/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
>>>>> +++ linux-2.6/virt/kvm/assigned-dev.c
>>>>> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thre
>>>>>  }
>>>>>  
>>>>>  #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_MSI
>>>>> -static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msi(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>>> +static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_msi_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *assigned_dev = dev_id;
>>>>>  
>>>>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thre
>>>>>  #endif
>>>>>  
>>>>>  #ifdef __KVM_HAVE_MSIX
>>>>> -static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msix(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>>> +static irqreturn_t kvm_assigned_dev_msix_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	struct kvm_assigned_dev_kernel *assigned_dev = dev_id;
>>>>>  	int index = find_index_from_host_irq(assigned_dev, irq);
>>>>> @@ -346,9 +346,8 @@ static int assigned_device_enable_host_m
>>>>>  	}
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	dev->host_irq = dev->dev->irq;
>>>>> -	if (request_threaded_irq(dev->host_irq, NULL,
>>>>> -				 kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msi, 0,
>>>>> -				 dev->irq_name, dev)) {
>>>>> +	if (request_irq(dev->host_irq, kvm_assigned_dev_msi_handler, 0,
>>>>> +			dev->irq_name, dev)) {
>>>>>  		pci_disable_msi(dev->dev);
>>>>>  		return -EIO;
>>>>>  	}
>>>>> @@ -373,9 +372,9 @@ static int assigned_device_enable_host_m
>>>>>  		return r;
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	for (i = 0; i < dev->entries_nr; i++) {
>>>>> -		r = request_threaded_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
>>>>> -					 NULL, kvm_assigned_dev_thread_msix,
>>>>> -					 0, dev->irq_name, dev);
>>>>> +		r = request_irq(dev->host_msix_entries[i].vector,
>>>>> +				kvm_assigned_dev_msix_handler, 0,
>>>>> +				dev->irq_name, dev);
>>>>>  		if (r)
>>>>>  			goto err;
>>>>>  	}
>>>>
>>>> This may work in practice but has two conceptual problems:
>>>>  - we do not want to run a potential broadcast to all VCPUs to run in
>>>>    a host IRQ handler
>>>>  - crazy user space could have configured the route to end up in the
>>>>    PIC or IOAPIC, and both are not hard-IRQ safe (this should probably
>>>>    be caught on setup)
>>>>
>>>> So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
>>>> MSI/MSI-X vector.
>>>
>>> I did this in the past:
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/18/287
>>>
>>> Have no hw to test this atm but if there are any takers
>>> wanting to play with it I can update and post.
>>
>> Just add check that allow only unicasts, and this should be fine.
>>
>> Jan
> 
> If I code it up you can test it?

Yep, no problem.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-08  8:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-01 16:16 [PATCH] KVM: Use IRQF_ONESHOT for assigned device MSI interrupts Alex Williamson
2012-06-01 16:39 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-06-01 17:03   ` Alex Williamson
2012-06-01 17:14     ` Jan Kiszka
2012-06-01 17:59       ` Alex Williamson
2012-06-01 18:26         ` Jan Kiszka
2012-06-03  8:42           ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-04 11:21             ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-06-04 11:40               ` Jan Kiszka
2012-06-04 13:07                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-06-04 13:16                   ` Jan Kiszka
2012-06-04 13:22                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-06-08  7:47                 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-08  7:55                   ` Jan Kiszka
2012-06-08  8:00                     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-08  8:03                       ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2012-06-08 14:39                 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-08 14:50                   ` Jan Kiszka
2012-06-11 10:01                     ` Avi Kivity
2012-06-11 10:21                       ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-06-18  8:46                         ` Ren, Yongjie
2012-06-18 11:00                         ` Avi Kivity

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=4FD1B1DE.9080303@siemens.com \
    --to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=yongjie.ren@intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox