The sequence of interrupt injection doesn't matter actually, since you
can't wait and inject to next domain only after previous one in the chain
doesn't handle it which is very low efficient.
To me the unhandled irq issue (as 99900 out of 100000) is inevitable.
Say irq sharing among 2 HVM domains, with one assigned a high rate
PCI device like NIC and the other assigned with a low rate PCI device
like UHCI, it's likely to have over 100000 interrupts from NIC with UHCI
silent in given period. Since, from Xen point of view, there's no way to
know which HVM guest owns given interrupt instance, same amount
of interrupts will be injected into both HVM domains.
We may force "noirqdebug", however that may not apply to all linux
version and other OSes from HVM side.
Actually there're more tricky things to consider for irq sharing among
domains. For example:
- Driver in one HVM domain may leave device in interrupt
assertion status while having related virtual wire always masked (like
an unclean driver unload).
- When OS first mask PIC entry and then unmask IOAPIC entry
one interrupt may occur in the middle and IOAPIC doesn't pend when
masked). So that pending indicator in PIC is missed.
Such rare cases can block the other domain sharing same irq,
once occurring unfortunately. This breaks the isolation between domains
heavily, which is common issue whatever approach we use to share irq.
Maybe better way is to use MSI instead and we may then avoid above irq
share issue from management tool side. For example, avoid
sharing devices with same irq among domains when MSI is not able to
use...
Thanks,
Kevin
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Guy Zana [mailto:guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 2007年6月3日 17:59
>To: Kay, Allen M; Keir Fraser; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Tian, Kevin
>Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [VTD][patch 0/5] HVM device assignment using
>vt-d
>
>Sort of... Our method might doubles the number of interrupts if both
>devices are connected to the same pin, but since all devices are OR
>wired, you might even "save" *physical* interrupts from happening -> I
>guess that we'll get a decisive answer only after performing some
>profiling.
>
>Our method will not work "out of the box" if you're trying to use it when
>sharing a pin between dom0 and an HVM.
>Consider the following scenario:
>
>HVM:
> _____________________
> ____|
>|___________________
>
>Dom0:
>
>____________________________________
> __________|
>
>Phys Line:
> __________________________________________
> ____|
>
>
> A B C D
>
>
>In point B you changed the polarity. In point C and D you won't be getting
>any interrupts since of the polarity-change, and the device that is
>allocated for dom0 will keep its line asserted until the dom0 driver will
>handle the interrupt, but it won't get a chance to do so, moreover, the
>hvm vline will still be kept asserted.
>
>We are currently modeling the problem, it seems that it's a complicated
>concept, regardless of changing-polarity. For instance, an HVM with a
>Linux OS will die if 99,900 interrupts out of 100,000 are not handled.
>
>From a logical POV, the aforementioned race is solved like this: we can
>hold a virtual assertion line for _dom0_ (which will be updated by the
>arrival of interrupts as a result from change-polarity) and concatenate the
>HVM's ISR chain with dom0's ISR chain, and dom0 must be the first to
>try handle the interrupt (because of the 99,000 to 100,000 problem), I
>guess that pass-through shared interrupts probably should be handled
>as the last (default) function in dom0's ISR chain.
>
>How do you plan to provide interrupts sharing with your method exactly?
>Please provide your thoughts.
>
>Thanks,
>Guy.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kay, Allen M [mailto:allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:29 AM
>> To: Guy Zana; Keir Fraser; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [VTD][patch 0/5] HVM device
>> assignment using vt-d
>>
>> Base on my understanding of the Neocleus' passthrough patch,
>> it seems all devices sharing that interrupt will get the
>> double number of interrupts. This means if a interrupt is
>> shared between a NIC device used by a HVM guest and a SATA
>> device used by dom0, the SATA driver in dom0 will also get
>> twice the number of interrupts. Am I correct?
>>
>> Allen
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Guy Zana [mailto:guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:05 PM
>> >To: Keir Fraser; Kay, Allen M; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [VTD][patch 0/5] HVM device
>> assignment using
>> >vt-d
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keir
>> >> Fraser
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:56 PM
>> >> To: Kay, Allen M; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [VTD][patch 0/5] HVM device
>> assignment using
>> >> vt-d
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Actually I also know there are some other patches coming down the
>> >> pipeline to do pci passthrough to HVM guests without need for
>> >> hardware support (of course it is not so general; in particular it
>> >> will only work for one special hvm guest).
>> >> However, they deal with this interrupt issue quite cunningly, by
>> >> inverting the interrupt polarity so that they get
>> interrupts on both
>> >> +ve and -ve edges of the INTx line. This allows the
>> virtual interrupt
>> >> wire to be 'wiggled' precisely according to the behaviour of the
>> >> physical interrupt wire.
>> >> Which is rather nice, although of course it does double
>> the interrupt
>> >> rate, which is not so great but perhaps acceptable for the kind of
>> >> low interrupt rate devices that most people would want to
>> hand off to
>> >> a hvm guest.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Just FYI.
>> >
>> >Neocleus' pass-through patches performs the "change polarity" trick.
>> >With changing the polarity, our motivation was to reflect the
>> >allocated device's assertion state to the HVM AS IS.
>> >
>> >Regarding the performance, using a USB 2.0 storage device
>> >(working with DMA), a huge file copy was compared when working
>> >in pass-through, and when working in native (on the same OS),
>> >the time differences were negligible so I'm not sure yet about
>> >the impact of doubling the number of interrupts. The advantage
>> >of changing the polarity is the simplicity.
>> >
>> >Anyways, We'll release some patches during the day so you
>> >could give your comments.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Guy.
>> >
>>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home