From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: x86/vMSI-X emulation issue
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:46:36 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56F3C58C02000078000DFF7B@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2c252cd234b94e0880b353477f590e62@AMSPEX02CL03.citrite.net>
>>> On 24.03.16 at 10:39, <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@suse.com]
>> Sent: 24 March 2016 09:35
>> To: Paul Durrant
>> Cc: Andrew Cooper; xen-devel
>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] x86/vMSI-X emulation issue
>>
>> >>> On 24.03.16 at 10:09, <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org] On Behalf Of
>> Jan
>> >> Beulich
>> >> Sent: 24 March 2016 07:52
>> >> > 2) Do aforementioned chopping automatically on seeing
>> >> > X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE, on the basis that the .check
>> >> > handler had indicated that the full range was acceptable. That
>> >> > would at once cover other similarly undesirable cases like the
>> >> > vLAPIC code returning this error. However, any stdvga like
>> >> > emulated device would clearly not want such to happen, and
>> >> > would instead prefer the entire batch to get forwarded in one
>> >> > go (stdvga itself sits on a different path). Otoh, with the
>> >> > devices we have currently, this would seem to be the least
>> >> > intrusive solution.
>> >>
>> >> Having thought about it more over night, I think this indeed is
>> >> the most reasonable route, not just because it's least intrusive:
>> >> For non-buffered internally handled I/O requests, no good can
>> >> come from forwarding full batches to qemu, when the respective
>> >> range checking function has indicated that this is an acceptable
>> >> request. And in fact neither vHPET not vIO-APIC code generate
>> >> X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE. And vLAPIC code doing so is also
>> >> just apparently so - I'll submit a patch to make this obvious once
>> >> tested.
>> >>
>> >> Otoh stdvga_intercept_pio() uses X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE in
>> >> a manner similar to the vMSI-X code - for internal caching and
>> >> then forwarding to qemu. Clearly that is also broken for
>> >> REP OUTS, and hence a similar rep count reduction is going to
>> >> be needed for the port I/O case.
>> >
>> > It suggests that such cache-and/or-forward models should probably sit
>> > somewhere else in the flow, possibly being invoked from
>> hvm_send_ioreq()
>> > since there should indeed be a selected ioreq server for these cases.
>>
>> I don't really think so. As I have gone through and carried out
>> what I had described above, I think I managed to address at
>> least one more issue with not properly handled rep counts, and
>> hence I think doing it that way is correct. I'll have to test the
>> thing before I can send it out, for you to take a look.
>>
>
> Ok. I never particularly liked using X86EMUL_UNHANDLEABLE to invoke the
> forwarding behaviour though as it's only legitimate to do it on the first
> rep.
Well, that's explicitly one of the wrong assumptions that patch
addresses: It is perfectly fine for an individual handler to return
this on other than the first iteration. It's only the generic
infrastructure which doesn't currently permit this (for no
apparent reason).
> I always had the feeling there had to be a nicer way of doing it.
> Possibly just too intrusive a change at this point though.
I'm of course up for alternatives, if you're willing to work on such.
Yet I think backporting would become even more of a problem when
going such an alternative route.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-24 9:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-23 17:05 x86/vMSI-X emulation issue Jan Beulich
2016-03-24 7:51 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-24 9:09 ` Paul Durrant
2016-03-24 9:35 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-24 9:39 ` Paul Durrant
2016-03-24 9:46 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2016-03-24 9:53 ` Paul Durrant
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=56F3C58C02000078000DFF7B@prv-mh.provo.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=Paul.Durrant@citrix.com \
--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).