From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
"Keir (Xen.org)" <keir@xen.org>, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] AMD/intremap: Prevent use of per-device vector maps until irq logic is fixed
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:35:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51ACA9AF.8000705@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51ACBF3702000078000DA924@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
On 03/06/13 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 31.05.13 at 22:04, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
>> In an effort to get AMD systems back to a non-regressed state, introduce a
>> new
>> type of vector map called per-device-global. This uses per-device vector maps
>> in the IOMMU, but uses a single used_vector map for the core IRQ logic.
> So what's the reason for not simply using OPT_IRQ_VECTOR_MAP_GLOBAL
> here?
Simply to make it obviously different until the core problem is fixed,
at which point I expect OPT_IRQ_VECTOR_MAP_PERDEV_GLOBAL to disappear.
>
>> This patch is intended to be removed as soon as the per-device logic is fixed
>> correctly.
> As a last resort thing this may be acceptable, but I'd much favor to
> fix this properly rather than hacking it like this.
While I agree that a proper fix would be good, what is going to happen
about 4.2 and 4.1 which wont have this new functionality backported?
Futhermore, unless this new functionalty is going to race into 4.3 at
the last moment, 4.3 will also be in a regressed state.
> Hence I'd really like
> to put up for discussion to instead use the patch[1] already posted
> as preparatory for the multi-vector MSI support doing away with the
> use of the vector for indexing the IRTE (and, in a second patch[2],
> the enforcement of OPT_IRQ_VECTOR_MAP_PERDEV).
>
> Also, overriding a command line request in the way you do is a
> no-go imo - even if this would cause [theoretical] problems,
Not theoretical. I have reproduced the issue, albeit with a modified
Xen which deliberately limits the range of vectors considered for a
certain device, to increase the chances of a collision.
> we
> ought to honor the request as long as we can't tell for sure that
> this is going to break the specific system. That's even more so
> since requesting per-device vector maps to be used on VT-d ought
> to yield exactly the same effect, yet you don't override the mode
> there.
Anyone using these vector maps with VT-d is mad. I could tweak the
patch to not override the command line but simply warn when global is
chosen.
>
> Furthermore, if only MSI-X devices currently suffer from this, the
> scalability effect this has (allowing nor more than about 200
> vectors to be in use even on huge systems) would call for limiting
> the effect to MSI-X capable devices (or perhaps even to devices
> actually using MSI-X).
>
> Jan
As I said, this reverts to the behaviour before XSA-36, but without the
security issue of a single IOMMU interrupt remapping table. Before
XSA-36, all AMD systems were limited in vector range because of the
global used_vector map.
~Andrew
>
> [1] http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-04/msg01886.html
> [2] http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-04/msg01887.html
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-03 14:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-31 20:04 [PATCH v2] AMD/intremap: Prevent use of per-device vector maps until irq logic is fixed Andrew Cooper
2013-06-03 14:07 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-03 14:35 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2013-06-03 15:01 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-03 15:17 ` Andrew Cooper
2013-06-03 15:28 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-03 15:41 ` Andrew Cooper
2013-06-04 13:12 ` George Dunlap
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=51ACA9AF.8000705@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jacob.shin@amd.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.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).