Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 3/8] kvm: Introduce basic MSI support for in-kernel irqchips

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2012-05-16 08:15, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-05-16 00:27, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 06:02:52PM -0300, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> This patch basically adds kvm_irqchip_send_msi, a service for sending
>>> arbitrary MSI messages to KVM's in-kernel irqchip models.
>>>
>>> As the current KVI API requires us to establish a static route from a
>>> pseudo GSI to the target MSI message and inject the MSI via toggling
>>> that GSI, we need to play some tricks to make this unfortunately
>>> interface transparent. We create those routes on demand and keep them
>>> in a hash table. Succeeding messages can then search for an existing
>>> route in the table first and reuse it whenever possible. If we should
>>> run out of limited GSIs, we simply flush the table and rebuild it as
>>> messages are sent.
>>>
>>> This approach is rather simple and could be optimized further. However,
>>> future kernels will contain a more efficient MSI injection interface
>>> that will obsolete the GSI-based dynamic injection.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>> ---
>>>  kvm-all.c |  139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  kvm.h     |    1 +
>>>  2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c
>>> index 2d82d54..e7ed510 100644
>>> --- a/kvm-all.c
>>> +++ b/kvm-all.c
>>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>>>  #include "qemu-barrier.h"
>>>  #include "sysemu.h"
>>>  #include "hw/hw.h"
>>> +#include "hw/msi.h"
>>>  #include "gdbstub.h"
>>>  #include "kvm.h"
>>>  #include "bswap.h"
>>> @@ -48,6 +49,8 @@
>>>      do { } while (0)
>>>  #endif
>>>  
>>> +#define KVM_MSI_HASHTAB_SIZE    256
>>> +
>>>  typedef struct KVMSlot
>>>  {
>>>      target_phys_addr_t start_addr;
>>> @@ -59,6 +62,11 @@ typedef struct KVMSlot
>>>  
>>>  typedef struct kvm_dirty_log KVMDirtyLog;
>>>  
>>> +typedef struct KVMMSIRoute {
>>> +    struct kvm_irq_routing_entry kroute;
>>> +    QTAILQ_ENTRY(KVMMSIRoute) entry;
>>> +} KVMMSIRoute;
>>> +
>>>  struct KVMState
>>>  {
>>>      KVMSlot slots[32];
>>> @@ -87,6 +95,7 @@ struct KVMState
>>>      int nr_allocated_irq_routes;
>>>      uint32_t *used_gsi_bitmap;
>>>      unsigned int gsi_count;
>>> +    QTAILQ_HEAD(msi_hashtab, KVMMSIRoute) msi_hashtab[KVM_MSI_HASHTAB_SIZE];
>>>  #endif
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> @@ -862,9 +871,14 @@ static void set_gsi(KVMState *s, unsigned int gsi)
>>>      s->used_gsi_bitmap[gsi / 32] |= 1U << (gsi % 32);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static void clear_gsi(KVMState *s, unsigned int gsi)
>>> +{
>>> +    s->used_gsi_bitmap[gsi / 32] &= ~(1U << (gsi % 32));
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static void kvm_init_irq_routing(KVMState *s)
>>>  {
>>> -    int gsi_count;
>>> +    int gsi_count, i;
>>>  
>>>      gsi_count = kvm_check_extension(s, KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING);
>>>      if (gsi_count > 0) {
>>> @@ -884,6 +898,10 @@ static void kvm_init_irq_routing(KVMState *s)
>>>      s->irq_routes = g_malloc0(sizeof(*s->irq_routes));
>>>      s->nr_allocated_irq_routes = 0;
>>>  
>>> +    for (i = 0; i < KVM_MSI_HASHTAB_SIZE; i++) {
>>> +        QTAILQ_INIT(&s->msi_hashtab[i]);
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>>      kvm_arch_init_irq_routing(s);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> @@ -934,11 +952,130 @@ int kvm_irqchip_commit_routes(KVMState *s)
>>>      return kvm_vm_ioctl(s, KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING, s->irq_routes);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static void kvm_release_gsi(KVMState *s, int gsi)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct kvm_irq_routing_entry *e;
>>> +    int i;
>>> +
>>> +    for (i = 0; i < s->irq_routes->nr; i++) {
>>> +        e = &s->irq_routes->entries[i];
>>> +        if (e->gsi == gsi) {
>>> +            s->irq_routes->nr--;
>>> +            *e = s->irq_routes->entries[s->irq_routes->nr];
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +    clear_gsi(s, gsi);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static unsigned int kvm_hash_msi(uint32_t data)
>>> +{
>>> +    /* This is optimized for IA32 MSI layout. However, no other arch shall
>>> +     * repeat the mistake of not providing a direct MSI injection API. */
>>> +    return data & 0xff;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void kvm_flush_dynamic_msi_routes(KVMState *s)
>>> +{
>>> +    KVMMSIRoute *route, *next;
>>> +    unsigned int hash;
>>> +
>>> +    for (hash = 0; hash < KVM_MSI_HASHTAB_SIZE; hash++) {
>>> +        QTAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(route, &s->msi_hashtab[hash], entry, next) {
>>> +            kvm_release_gsi(s, route->kroute.gsi);
>>> +            QTAILQ_REMOVE(&s->msi_hashtab[hash], route, entry);
>>> +            g_free(route);
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int kvm_get_pseudo_gsi(KVMState *s)
>>> +{
>>> +    uint32_t *word = s->used_gsi_bitmap;
>>> +    int max_words = ALIGN(s->gsi_count, 32) / 32;
>>> +    int i, bit;
>>> +    bool retry = true;
>>> +
>>> +again:
>>> +    /* Return the lowest unused GSI in the bitmap */
>>> +    for (i = 0; i < max_words; i++) {
>>> +        bit = ffs(~word[i]);
>>> +        if (!bit) {
>>> +            continue;
>>> +        }
>>> +
>>> +        return bit - 1 + i * 32;
>>> +    }
>>> +    if (retry) {
>>> +        retry = false;
>>> +        kvm_flush_dynamic_msi_routes(s);
>>> +        goto again;
>>> +    }
>>
>> Guests with more MSI vectors than GSIs available, multiplexing are going
>> to be so slow that its best to disallow this completly (set_irq_route ->
>> synchronize_rcu can take 10ms or more, each).
> 
> Well, it's still way better than exit(1) - what happens so far (but
> obviously not in practice, or we would have heard about it). Note that
> this code path is also required for MSI garbage collection, even if we
> limited the vectors somehow.
> 
>>
>> MSI vectors must be allocated before use, can't it report #nr of
>> available ones in MSI Multiple Message Capable field? Or allow one MSI
>> per device? Or any other way to avoid this multiplexing.
> 
> I can't follow yet. All we have is the maximum number of vectors per
> device on MSI[-X] init. There is no spec-conforming interface to
> retrieve the actual vector usage from the guest, nor is there anything
> to signal resource shortage once we exposed the MSI[-X] capability.
> Also, in this design, we do not track vector origins back to the device,
> so we can't apply per-device quotas.
> 
> But given that we haven't heard about such an overflow scenario in
> practice so far (or did you?), I think there is no urgent need to worry.
> And we could still increase the number of GSIs.

Oh, and forgot to remind that this route flushing code path will be
unused on current kernels with KVM_CAP_SIGNAL_MSI.

I will push a new version of this series soon as this one as a small
bisactability issue.

Jan

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