xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
	<xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/12] x86/rtc: drop code related to strict mode
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 11:28:40 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YI/CSKpqWrilNKi8@Air-de-Roger> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f282a2a2-e5cb-6a65-690a-b9c27c03089a@suse.com>

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 04:53:07PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.04.2021 16:07, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/rtc.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/rtc.c
> > @@ -46,15 +46,6 @@
> >  #define epoch_year     1900
> >  #define get_year(x)    (x + epoch_year)
> >  
> > -enum rtc_mode {
> > -   rtc_mode_no_ack,
> > -   rtc_mode_strict
> > -};
> > -
> > -/* This must be in sync with how hvmloader sets the ACPI WAET flags. */
> > -#define mode_is(d, m) ((void)(d), rtc_mode_##m == rtc_mode_no_ack)
> > -#define rtc_mode_is(s, m) mode_is(vrtc_domain(s), m)
> 
> Leaving aside my concerns about this removal, I think some form of
> reference to hvmloader and its respective behavior should remain
> here, presumably in form of a (replacement) comment.

What about adding a comment in rtc_pf_callback:

/*
 * The current RTC implementation will inject an interrupt regardless
 * of whether REG_C has been read since the last interrupt was
 * injected. This is why the ACPI WAET 'RTC good' flag must be
 * unconditionally set by hvmloader.
 */

> > @@ -337,8 +336,7 @@ int pt_update_irq(struct vcpu *v)
> >      {
> >          if ( pt->pending_intr_nr )
> >          {
> > -            /* RTC code takes care of disabling the timer itself. */
> > -            if ( (pt->irq != RTC_IRQ || !pt->priv) && pt_irq_masked(pt) &&
> > +            if ( pt_irq_masked(pt) &&
> >                   /* Level interrupts should be asserted even if masked. */
> >                   !pt->level )
> >              {
> 
> I'm struggling to relate this to any other part of the patch. In
> particular I can't find the case where a periodic timer would be
> registered with RTC_IRQ and a NULL private pointer. The only use
> I can find is with a non-NULL pointer, which would mean the "else"
> path is always taken at present for the RTC case (which you now
> change).

Right, the else case was always taken because as the comment noted RTC
would take care of disabling itself (by calling destroy_periodic_time
from the callback when using strict_mode). When no_ack mode was
implemented this wasn't taken into account AFAICT, and thus the RTC
was never removed from the list even when masked.

I think with no_ack mode the RTC shouldn't have this specific handling
in pt_update_irq, as it should behave like any other virtual timer.
I could try to split this as a separate bugfix, but then I would have
to teach pt_update_irq to differentiate between strict_mode and no_ack
mode.

Would you be fine if the following is added to the commit message
instead:

"Note that the special handling of the RTC timer done in pt_update_irq
is wrong for the no_ack mode, as the RTC timer callback won't disable
the timer anymore when it detects the guest is not reading REG_C. As
such remove the code as part of the removal of strict_mode, and don't
special case the RTC timer anymore in pt_update_irq."

Thanks, Roger.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-03  9:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-20 14:07 [PATCH v4 00/12] x86/intr: introduce EOI callbacks and fix vPT Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 01/12] x86/rtc: drop code related to strict mode Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-29 14:53   ` Jan Beulich
2021-05-03  9:28     ` Roger Pau Monné [this message]
2021-05-03 12:26       ` Jan Beulich
2021-05-03 14:47         ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-05-03 14:58           ` Jan Beulich
2021-05-03 15:28             ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-05-03 15:59               ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 02/12] x86/vlapic: introduce an EOI callback mechanism Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-29 15:48   ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 03/12] x86/vmsi: use the newly introduced EOI callbacks Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 04/12] x86/vioapic: switch to use the EOI callback mechanism Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-29 15:51   ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 05/12] x86/hvm: allowing registering EOI callbacks for GSIs Roger Pau Monne
2021-05-03 15:50   ` Jan Beulich
2021-05-04 10:27     ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 06/12] x86/dpci: move code Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 07/12] x86/dpci: switch to use a GSI EOI callback Roger Pau Monne
2021-05-04  9:28   ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 08/12] x86/vpt: switch interrupt injection model Roger Pau Monne
2021-05-04 11:00   ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 09/12] x86/irq: remove unused parameter from hvm_isa_irq_assert Roger Pau Monne
2021-05-04 11:42   ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 10/12] x86/irq: drop return value from hvm_ioapic_assert Roger Pau Monne
2021-05-04 11:42   ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 11/12] x86/vpt: remove vPT timers per-vCPU lists Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-20 14:07 ` [PATCH v4 12/12] x86/vpt: introduce a per-vPT lock Roger Pau Monne

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=YI/CSKpqWrilNKi8@Air-de-Roger \
    --to=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=wl@xen.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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).