From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
To: Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] VFIO: Add a parameter to force nonthread IRQ
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:18:48 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1446056328.8018.422.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151028175013.GA21961@jnakajim-build>
On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 10:50 -0700, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 01:44:55AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 27/10/2015 22:26, Yunhong Jiang wrote:
> > >> > On RT kernels however can you call eventfd_signal from interrupt
> > >> > context? You cannot call spin_lock_irqsave (which can sleep) from a
> > >> > non-threaded interrupt handler, can you? You would need a raw spin lock.
> > > Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, we can't call spin_lock_irqsave on RT
> > > kernel. Will do this way on next patch. But not sure if it's overkill to use
> > > raw_spinlock there since the eventfd_signal is used by other caller also.
> >
> > No, I don't think you can use raw_spinlock there. The problem is not
> > just eventfd_signal, it is especially wake_up_locked_poll. You cannot
> > convert the whole workqueue infrastructure to use raw_spinlock.
>
> You mean the waitqueue, instead of workqueue, right? One choice is to change
> the eventfd to use simple wait queue, which is raw_spinlock. But use simple
> waitqueue on eventfd may in fact impact real time latency if not in this
> scenario.
>
> >
> > Alex, would it make sense to use the IRQ bypass infrastructure always,
> > not just for VT-d, to do the MSI injection directly from the VFIO
> > interrupt handler and bypass the eventfd? Basically this would add an
> > RCU-protected list of consumers matching the token to struct
> > irq_bypass_producer, and a
> >
> > int (*inject)(struct irq_bypass_consumer *);
> >
> > callback to struct irq_bypass_consumer. If any callback returns true,
> > the eventfd is not signaled. The KVM implementation would be like this
> > (compare with virt/kvm/eventfd.c):
> >
> > /* Extracted out of irqfd_wakeup */
> > static int
> > irqfd_wakeup_pollin(struct kvm_kernel_irqfd *irqfd)
> > {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > /* Extracted out of irqfd_wakeup */
> > static int
> > irqfd_wakeup_pollhup(struct kvm_kernel_irqfd *irqfd)
> > {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > static int
> > irqfd_wakeup(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync,
> > void *key)
> > {
> > struct _irqfd *irqfd = container_of(wait,
> > struct _irqfd, wait);
> > unsigned long flags = (unsigned long)key;
> >
> > if (flags & POLLIN)
> > irqfd_wakeup_pollin(irqfd);
> > if (flags & POLLHUP)
> > irqfd_wakeup_pollhup(irqfd);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > static int kvm_arch_irq_bypass_inject(
> > struct irq_bypass_consumer *cons)
> > {
> > struct kvm_kernel_irqfd *irqfd =
> > container_of(cons, struct kvm_kernel_irqfd,
> > consumer);
> >
> > irqfd_wakeup_pollin(irqfd);
> > }
> >
> This is a good idea IMHO. So for MSI interrupt, the
> kvm_arch_irq_bypass_inject will be used, and the irqfd_wakeup will not be
> invoked anymore, am I right?
>
> I noticed the irq bypass manager is not merged yet, are there any git branch
> for it?
It's in linux-next via the kvm.git next branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git
Thanks,
Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-28 18:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-27 1:20 [RFC PATCH] VFIO: Add a parameter to force nonthread IRQ Yunhong Jiang
2015-10-27 3:37 ` Alex Williamson
2015-10-27 6:35 ` Yunhong Jiang
2015-10-27 9:29 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-10-27 21:26 ` Yunhong Jiang
2015-10-28 0:44 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-10-28 16:00 ` Alex Williamson
2015-10-28 17:05 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-10-28 23:54 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2015-10-29 3:11 ` Alex Williamson
2015-10-29 9:45 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-10-30 6:16 ` Yunhong Jiang
2015-11-02 9:17 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-10-28 17:50 ` Yunhong Jiang
2015-10-28 18:18 ` Alex Williamson [this message]
2015-10-28 21:46 ` Yunhong Jiang
2015-10-28 18:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
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=1446056328.8018.422.camel@redhat.com \
--to=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=yunhong.jiang@linux.intel.com \
/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).