Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] vt-d: add a timeout parameter for Queued Invalidation

["Xu, Quan" <quan.xu@intel.com>]

On May 17, 2016 3:48 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 17.05.16 at 05:19, <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
> >>  From: Xu, Quan
> >> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:26 PM
> >>
> >> On May 13, 2016 11:28 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >> > >>> On 22.04.16 at 12:54, <quan.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> >> > > --- a/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown
> >> > > +++ b/docs/misc/xen-command-line.markdown
> >> > > @@ -1532,6 +1532,16 @@ Note that if **watchdog** option is also
> >> > specified vpmu will be turned off.
> >> > >  As the virtualisation is not 100% safe, don't use the vpmu flag
> >> > > on production systems (see http://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-
> 163.html)!
> >> > >
> >> > > +### vtd\_qi\_timeout (VT-d)
> >> > > +> `= <integer>`
> >> > > +
> >> > > +> Default: `1`
> >> > > +
> >> > > +Specify the timeout of the VT-d Queued Invalidation in milliseconds.
> >> > > +
> >> > > +By default, the timeout is 1ms. When you see error 'Queue
> >> > > +invalidate wait descriptor timed out', try increasing this value.
> >> >
> >> > So when someone enables ATS, will the 1ms timeout apply to the dev
> >> > iotlb invalidations too?
> >>
> >> Yes,
> >> The timeout is the same for IOTLB, Context, IEC and Device-TLB invalidation.
> >>
> >> > If so, that's surely too short, and would ideally be adjusted
> >> > automatically, but the need for a higher timeout in that case
> >> > should in any event be mentioned here.
> >>
> >> I can try to use 1ms for IOTLB, Context and  IEC invalidation. As
> >> mentioned, 1 ms is enough for IOTLB, Context and  IEC invalidation.
> >> What about 10 ms for Device-TLB (10 ms is just a higher timeout,  no
> specific meaning)?
> >
> > I remember in earlier discussion we agreed to use 1ms as the default
> > for both IOMMU-side and device-side flushes. For device-side flushes,
> > we checked internal HW team that 1ms is a reasonable threshold for
> > integrated devices. It's likely insufficient for discrete devices. We
> > may check any automatic adjustment method later when it becomes a real
> > problem. For now, please elaborate above information in the text.
> 
> Well, taking care of automation later is fine with me, 
> but tying everything to a
> single timeout, when device iotlb invalidation may require a much larger value,
> isn't.
>

A little bit confused. Check it -- could I leave patch 1/3 as is? 

btw, I have tested it against the last commit, no conflict.


Quan

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