Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 22.08.16 at 13:41, <xuquan8@huawei.com> wrote:
> On August 22, 2016 6:36 PM, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 19.08.16 at 14:58, <xuquan8@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> From 9b2df963c13ad27e2cffbeddfa3267782ac3da2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Quan Xu <xuquan8@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 20:40:31 +0800
>>> Subject: [RFC PATCH] x86/apicv: fix RTC periodic timer and apicv issue
>>>
>>> When Xen apicv is enabled, wall clock time is faster on Windows7-32 guest
>>> with high payload (with 2vCPU, captured from xentrace, in high payload, the
>>> count of IPI interrupt increases rapidly between these vCPUs).
>>>
>>> If IPI intrrupt (vector 0xe1) and periodic timer interrupt (vector 0xd1)
>>> are both pending (index of bit set in VIRR), unfortunately, the IPI intrrupt
>>> is high priority than periodic timer interrupt. Xen updates IPI interrupt bit
>>> set in VIRR to guest interrupt status (RVI) as a high priority and apicv
>>> (Virtual-Interrupt Delivery) delivers IPI interrupt within VMX non-root
>>> operation without a VM exit. Within VMX non-root operation, if periodic timer
>>> interrupt index of bit is set in VIRR and highest, the apicv delivers periodic
>>> timer interrupt within VMX non-root operation as well.
>>>
>>> But in current code, if Xen doesn't update periodic timer interrupt bit set
>>> in VIRR to guest interrupt status (RVI) directly, Xen is not aware of this
>>> case to decrease the count (pending_intr_nr) of pending periodic timer
>>> interrupt,
>>> then Xen will deliver a periodic timer interrupt again. The guest receives
>>> more
>>> periodic timer interrupt.
>>>
>>> If the periodic timer interrut is delivered and not the highest priority, make
>>> Xen be aware of this case to decrease the count of pending periodic timer
>>> interrupt.
>>
>>I can see the issue you're trying to address, but for one - doesn't
>>this lead to other double accounting, namely once the pt irq becomes
>>the highest priority one?
>>
> 
> It is does NOT lead to other double accounting..
> As if the pt irq becomes the highest priority one, the intack is pt one..
> Then:
> 
>  +        else
>  +            pt_intr_post(v, intack);

As just said in reply to Yang: If this is still the same interrupt instance
as in a prior run through here which took the if() branch, this change
looks like having the potential of double accounting.

>>Plus the change above is in no way apicv specific, so I'd also like to
>>see clarification why this change is valid (i.e. at least not making
>>things worse) even without apicv in use.
>>
> 
> __iiuc__, it is apicv specific, as these change is under condition 
> 'cpu_has_vmx_virtual_intr_delivery' (Virtual Interrupt Delivery is one of 
> apicv features) as below:
> 
>     if ( cpu_has_vmx_virtual_intr_delivery ...) {  ___change___ }

Indeed, as already said in reply to Yang, I apparently didn't look
closely enough. I'm sorry for the noise.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel