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

[Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 03:32:36PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> 
> On 22.01.2011, at 15:14, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:13:03PM +0100, 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.
> > 
> > I totally agree.
> > 
> > 
> >> 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. 
> > 
> > Yes, essentially, the CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD signal is an input to the CPU.
> > The CPU cannot drive it directly. To lower it, it must take some kind
> > of indirect action (IO or whatever) to clear the condition that is
> > forcing it high. Any assignments to clear or set the CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD
> > signal from within the CPU core are likely wrong..
> > 
> > FWIW, PPC code in cpu-exec.c:443 looks suspicious aswell...
> 
> How's that suspicious? As long as pending_interrupts is only reset on actual interrupt delivery, everything's fine. Interrupts like the decrementor are not level based on some PPCs, so the actual semantics are implementation dependent.
> 

It's suspicious because it's not the right place to do that. It should
be done in the interrupt controller. This seems to be already done in
hw/ppc.c when updating pending_interrupts, so this code seems to be
useless.

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