From: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
<xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/11] x86/vpt: switch interrupt injection model
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:20:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YHb6NvqwSjFzrCrt@Air-de-Roger> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4c65efcf-28fa-147d-8c82-7498cad19aeb@suse.com>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:05:20PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.04.2021 15:37, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:28:43PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 31.03.2021 12:33, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>> ---
> >>> xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/intr.c | 3 -
> >>> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/intr.c | 59 ------
> >>> xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c | 334 ++++++++++++++--------------------
> >>> xen/include/asm-x86/hvm/vpt.h | 5 +-
> >>> 4 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 258 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Nice.
> >>
> >>> @@ -285,189 +238,144 @@ static void pt_irq_fired(struct vcpu *v, struct periodic_time *pt)
> >>> list_del(&pt->list);
> >>> pt->on_list = false;
> >>> pt->pending_intr_nr = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + return;
> >>> }
> >>> - else if ( mode_is(v->domain, one_missed_tick_pending) ||
> >>> - mode_is(v->domain, no_missed_ticks_pending) )
> >>> +
> >>> + if ( mode_is(v->domain, one_missed_tick_pending) ||
> >>> + mode_is(v->domain, no_missed_ticks_pending) )
> >>> {
> >>> - pt->last_plt_gtime = hvm_get_guest_time(v);
> >>> pt_process_missed_ticks(pt);
> >>> pt->pending_intr_nr = 0; /* 'collapse' all missed ticks */
> >>> + }
> >>> + else if ( !pt->pending_intr_nr )
> >>> + pt_process_missed_ticks(pt);
> >>
> >> Did you lose a -- here? I.e. does the condition mean to match ...
> >>
> >>> + if ( !pt->pending_intr_nr )
> >>> set_timer(&pt->timer, pt->scheduled);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static void pt_timer_fn(void *data)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct periodic_time *pt = data;
> >>> + struct vcpu *v;
> >>> + time_cb *cb = NULL;
> >>> + void *cb_priv;
> >>> + unsigned int irq;
> >>> +
> >>> + pt_lock(pt);
> >>> +
> >>> + v = pt->vcpu;
> >>> + irq = pt->irq;
> >>> +
> >>> + if ( inject_interrupt(pt) )
> >>> + {
> >>> + pt->scheduled += pt->period;
> >>> + pt->do_not_freeze = 0;
> >>> + cb = pt->cb;
> >>> + cb_priv = pt->priv;
> >>> }
> >>> else
> >>> {
> >>> - pt->last_plt_gtime += pt->period;
> >>> - if ( --pt->pending_intr_nr == 0 )
> >>
> >> ... this original code? Otherwise I can't see why the condition
> >> guards a pt_process_missed_ticks() invocation.
> >
> > I think the logic here changed enough to not match anymore. Certainly
> > pending_intr_nr shouldn't be decreased there, as pt_irq_fired is
> > invoked after an EOI in this patch, instead of being invoked when a
> > vpt related interrupt was injected. I think I should better rename
> > pt_irq_fired to pt_irq_eoi and that would make it clearer.
>
> But pt_process_missed_ticks() should be called only when a tick was
> missed, shouldn't it?
No, I think the purpose of the function is to update the
pending_intr_nr field, ie: calculate if and how many ticks have been
missed.
It's fine for pt_process_missed_ticks to return without having changed
pending_intr_nr at all if no ticks have been missed.
> Or actually, looking at the function, I guess
> I'm confused. Does your patch change the meaning of the field?
Not really, I think pt_process_missed_ticks has always had this logic.
The pending_intr_nr filed should still have the same logic, account
for the amount of missed ticks up to the value in the scheduled field.
> > FWIW, decreasing pending_intr_nr should only be done after an
> > inject_interrupt call.
>
> Then this line (which you leave in place)
>
> pt->pending_intr_nr = 0; /* 'collapse' all missed ticks */
>
> is contradicting the (new) model.
Oh, right, that's mode specific. no_missed_ticks_pending will just
drop any interrupts that haven't been injected when they should have
been. I had the 'account missed ticks' mode in mind when I wrote that.
I now have pt_irq_fired as:
static void irq_eoi(struct periodic_time *pt)
{
if ( pt->one_shot )
{
pt->pending_intr_nr = 0;
return;
}
pt_process_missed_ticks(pt);
/* 'collapse' missed ticks according to the selected mode. */
switch ( pt->vcpu->domain->arch.hvm.params[HVM_PARAM_TIMER_MODE] )
{
case HVMPTM_one_missed_tick_pending:
pt->pending_intr_nr = min(pt->pending_intr_nr, 1u);
break;
case HVMPTM_no_missed_ticks_pending:
pt->pending_intr_nr = 0;
break;
}
if ( !pt->pending_intr_nr )
{
/* Make sure timer follows vCPU. */
migrate_timer(&pt->timer, current->processor);
set_timer(&pt->timer, pt->scheduled);
}
}
But I think it's best if I post it as a new version, so you can see
the context.
Thanks, Roger.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-14 14:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-31 10:32 [PATCH v3 00/11] x86/intr: introduce EOI callbacks and fix vPT Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 01/11] x86/hvm: drop vcpu parameter from vlapic EOI callbacks Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 16:02 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 16:24 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-04-01 9:12 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-01 11:06 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-07 7:41 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-07 8:19 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 02/11] x86/hvm: drop domain parameter from vioapic/vpic " Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 16:04 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-01 9:15 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-01 9:28 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 03/11] x86/vlapic: introduce an EOI callback mechanism Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 11:47 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-03-31 12:50 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-07 14:55 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-07 16:27 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 6:20 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 9:12 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 10:49 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 10:56 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 04/11] x86/vmsi: use the newly introduced EOI callbacks Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-07 14:59 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 05/11] x86/vioapic: switch to use the EOI callback mechanism Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-07 15:19 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-07 16:46 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 6:27 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 8:59 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 10:52 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 06/11] x86/hvm: allowing registering EOI callbacks for GSIs Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-07 15:51 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-07 17:08 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 6:34 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-15 16:04 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-16 7:29 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-19 8:31 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 12:52 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-08 14:31 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 15:06 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-31 10:32 ` [PATCH v3 07/11] x86/dpci: move code Roger Pau Monne
2021-03-31 10:33 ` [PATCH v3 08/11] x86/dpci: switch to use a GSI EOI callback Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-08 14:49 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-08 15:23 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-03-31 10:33 ` [PATCH v3 09/11] x86/vpt: switch interrupt injection model Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-14 10:28 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-14 13:37 ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-14 14:05 ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-14 14:20 ` Roger Pau Monné [this message]
2021-03-31 10:33 ` [PATCH v3 10/11] x86/vpt: remove vPT timers per-vCPU lists Roger Pau Monne
2021-04-14 10:38 ` Jan Beulich
2021-03-31 10:33 ` [PATCH v3 11/11] x86/vpt: introduce a per-vPT lock Roger Pau Monne
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=YHb6NvqwSjFzrCrt@Air-de-Roger \
--to=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=wl@xen.org \
--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).