Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for 2.8?] x86: ioapic: ignore level irq during processing

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 12:58:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 31/07/2016 16:18, Peter Xu wrote:
> > For level triggered interrupts, we will get Remote IRR bit cleared after
> > guest kernel finished processing specific request. Before that, we
> > should ignore the same interrupt from triggering again.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > I discovered this during debugging some IR issues. Only did very
> > minimum test with e1000, but IIUC this should be the correct behavior
> > for level triggered interrupts, and before that we might be sending
> > some extra interrupts to guest (while we should not).
> > 
> >  hw/intc/ioapic.c | 10 ++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/intc/ioapic.c b/hw/intc/ioapic.c
> > index 2d3282a..350f761 100644
> > --- a/hw/intc/ioapic.c
> > +++ b/hw/intc/ioapic.c
> > @@ -129,9 +129,15 @@ static void ioapic_service(IOAPICCommonState *s)
> >                      }
> >                      continue;
> >                  }
> > -#else
> > -                (void)coalesce;
> >  #endif
> > +
> > +                if (coalesce) {
> > +                    /* We are level triggered interrupts, and the
> > +                     * guest should be still working on previous one,
> > +                     * so skip it. */
> > +                    continue;
> > +                }
> > +
> >                  /* No matter whether IR is enabled, we translate
> >                   * the IOAPIC message into a MSI one, and its
> >                   * address space will decide whether we need a
> > 
> 
> The patch is okay for 2.7, as it matches what is done in the KVM
> split-irqchip case.

Cool. It'll be nice to have it in 2.7 as well. Thanks,

-- peterx