From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>
Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] removing on-demand msix vector allocation
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:55:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121210095528.GC25390@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50C5ADDB.1010503@web.de>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:39:39AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-12-10 10:36, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 08:37:22AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-12-06 08:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> I've been looking at handling of msix masking
> >>> in qemu. It looks like all of virtio,vfio and
> >>> device assignment implemented their own
> >>> similar but slightly different thing.
> >>> So I am inclined to move this handling to common
> >>> code in msix.c, adding irqfd support right there.
> >>>
> >>> While doing this rework, one of the more painful
> >>> bits of code to change is the code that dynamically
> >>> allocates msix table entries as we inject msi.
> >>> If this actually triggers it's going to be
> >>> painfully slow as route changes are rcu
> >>> write side in kernel.
> >>> Since recent kernels support direct injection,
> >>> do we care anymore? I think if you run out of
> >>> vectors, it's better to simply disable irqchip
> >>> than try to limp along changing routes all the time.
> >>
> >> But how would the logic without dynamic allocation look like? Always
> >> configure a route in the PCI layer if an MSI/MSI-X entry is enabled?
> >> That would also affect emulated devices that don't use irqfd, thus you
> >> would waste routing entries.
> >
> > Yes.
> > So we can fail during initialization and ask user to
> > disable irqchip: at the moment, at least in my testing,
> > dynamic swap out of MSI entries performs very badly
> > anyway.
>
> That would be a poor approach as it regresses needlessly even over
> latest kernels.
> We only allocate/flush dynamically over older kernels
> without direct MSI injections.
>
> What we need is a flag, set e.g. on msi[x]_init, to give the core a hint
> if it should allocate static routes for irqfd or if it will be able to
> use direct injection later on. Then we can simply do static allocation
> unconditionally on kernels without direct injection.
>
> Jan
>
>
Makes sense.
--
MST
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-10 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-06 7:59 [Qemu-devel] removing on-demand msix vector allocation Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-07 7:37 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-12-10 9:36 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-12-10 9:39 ` Jan Kiszka
2012-12-10 9:55 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
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=20121210095528.GC25390@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@web.de \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).