From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45440 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OHHNQ-0003Mk-OJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 10:14:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1OHHGM-0003ZX-Kb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 10:07:18 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51472)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1OHHGM-0003ZF-Dl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 May 2010 10:07:14 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 17:02:47 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100526140247.GA32021@redhat.com>
References: <AANLkTiladcF1x0cOZdz7MbvXuYhYjq2EiCCnDbsUm0Z4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiladcF1x0cOZdz7MbvXuYhYjq2EiCCnDbsUm0Z4@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: migrating guest with msi-x interrupts
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Cam Macdonell <cam@cs.ualberta.ca>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:09:13PM -0600, Cam Macdonell wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying to migrate a guest device with MSI-X interrupts.  However,
> the interrupts are not injected into the guest.  I've added some
> tracing to msix.c and it seems that the MSI-X vectors are masked when
> the guest is resumed (I'm testing with static migration).
> 
> In particular, in msix.c, msix_is_masked(...) is returning true when
> the guest resumes which causes msix_set_pending() to be called instead
> of msix_set_irq().
> 
> /* Send an MSI-X message */
> void msix_notify(PCIDevice *dev, unsigned vector)
> {
>     uint8_t *table_entry = dev->msix_table_page + vector * MSIX_ENTRY_SIZE;
>     uint64_t address;
>     uint32_t data;
> 
>     if (vector >= dev->msix_entries_nr || !dev->msix_entry_used[vector])
>         return;
> 
>     if (msix_is_masked(dev, vector)) {
>         msix_set_pending(dev, vector);
>         return;
>     }
> 
> ...
> 
> Does migrating a guest device that uses MSI-X require
> msix_load()/save() to be called explicity in a pre/post_save/load
> function?
> 
> Any pointers or comments would be helpful,
> Cam

Yes. Look at how virtio does this.
Incidentially, I think reusing virtio for configuration would save
effort, and have other advantages such as making it possible to support
non-pci guests.

-- 
MST