Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 8/8] ahci: fix !msi interrupts

[Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 03:28:06PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 22.01.2011, at 14:13, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:58:25PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2011-01-18 13:05, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On 18.01.2011, at 10:08, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> 
> >>>>>> Worse might also be that unknown issue that force you to inject an IRQ
> >>>>>> here. We don't know. That's probably worst.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Well, IIRC the issue was that usually a level high interrupt line would
> >>>>> simply retrigger an interrupt after enabling the interrupt line in the
> >>>>> APIC again.
> >>>> 
> >>>> edge triggered interrupts wouldn't though.
> >>> 
> >>> The code change doesn't change anything for edge triggered interrupts - they work fine. Only !msi (== level) ones are broken.
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Unless my memory completely fails on me, that didn't happen,
> >>>>> so I added the manual retrigger on a partial command ACK in ahci code.
> >>>> 
> >>>> That re-trigger smells like you are not clearing the interrupt line where you should.  For starters try calling ahci_check_irq() after guest writes to PORT_IRQ_STAT.
> >>> 
> >>> The problem happened when I had the following:
> >>> 
> >>> ahci irq bits = 0
> >>> <events happen>
> >>> ahci irq bits = 1 | 2
> >>> irq line trigger
> >>> guest clears 1
> >>> ahci bits = 2
> >>> <no irq line trigger, since we're still irq high>
> >>> 
> >>> On normal hardware, the high state of the irq line would simply trigger another interrupt in the guest when it gets ACKed on the LAPIC. Somehow it doesn't get triggered here. I don't see why clearing the interrupt line would help? It's not what real hardware would do, no?
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> No, real devices would simply leave the line asserted as long as there
> >> is a reason to.
> >> 
> >> So again my question: With which irqchips do you see this effect, kvm's
> >> in-kernel model and/or qemu's user space model? If there is an issue
> >> with retriggering a CPU interrupt while the source is still asserted,
> >> that probably needs to be fixed.
> >> 
> > 
> > I guess it might be related to a problem identified long time ago on
> > some targets, and that leads to the following #ifdef in i8259.c:
> > 
> > | /* all targets should do this rather than acking the IRQ in the cpu */
> > | #if defined(TARGET_MIPS) || defined(TARGET_PPC) || defined(TARGET_ALPHA)
> > 
> > For your information it has been fixed on MIPS in commit 
> > 4de9b249d37c1b382cc3e5a21fad1b4a11cec2fa.
> > 
> > Basically when an interrupt line is high, the interrupt is getting
> > delivered to the CPU. This part works correctly on x86. The CPU will
> > take a corresponding action, basically either disabling the interrupt
> > at the CPU or controller level or doing something on the device so that
> > it lower its IRQ line. This new IRQ line level should then propagate
> > through the various controllers, which should also lower their IRQ line
> > if no other interrupt line are active. This ACK process should then
> > continue up to the CPU.
> > 
> > For x86 the interrupt state is cleared as soon as the interrupt is
> > signaled to the CPU (see cpu-exec.c line 407), therefore if an interrupt
> > is still pending, it won't be seen by the CPU. It's probably what you
> > observed with AHCI. 
> 
> I'm not sure what the best way to solve it would be, but maybe a callback on iret would work? Then the interrupt can be checked on again.

This looks really like a hack, and the one you put in AHCI is probably
better than this one

> Alternatively, env->interrupt_request really should get cleared by the LAPIC when the interrupt line is pulled down there.

I think this is the way to go, as it matches what happens on real
hardware. The changes might be a bit more invasive though.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno	                        GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net