Sorry, last mail, For 2)
there still one or more interrupt CAN NOT be scheduled for HVM after “is_paused_by_controller”
changed
Thanks
Xiaohui.
From:
Xin, Xiaohui
Sent: 2007年10月20日 19:05
To: 'Keir Fraser';
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE:
[Xen-devel][VTD][PATCH][RESEND]add a timer for the sharedinterrupt issue for
vt-d
Keir,
For 1) I have changes the
hvm_pci_intx_assert() to be untouched. The reason is that, I want to get the
result of the hvm_pci_intx_assert() since I think I could get some hints of the
failure of the assertion quickly, and I do get the hints, so in the patches
sent out before, I just do pirq_guest_eoi() quickly. But from your response,
seems you don’t like any change to the hvm_pci_intx_assert(). So I think
another way, I can still use timer to deal with that though that it should be a
little slower to call pirq_guest_eoi() at last, you know, in that situation, if
the assert failure, the timer will be functional still.
For 2) Yes, firstly I
think to use the flag of the domain as “is_pasued_by_controller”, but from the
experience and from the log file, at the situation which IDE shares interrupt
with NIC card, and when the NIC is assigned to HVM guest, “is
pasued_by_controller” can deal with most cases, but after unpaused, there are
still one or more interrupts can be scheduled. The “is_paused_by_controller”
can not deal with all the cases. So I still use timer to deal with that
because timer is simple.
Any other comments?
Thanks
Xiaohui
From:
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
Sent: 2007年10月19日 18:25
To: Xin, Xiaohui;
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
[Xen-devel][VTD][PATCH][RESEND]add a timer for the sharedinterrupt issue for
vt-d
Applied, but I have the
following questions:
1. Your changes to hvm_pci_intx_assert() have completely disappeared. Did
you decide you didn’t need them after all, or have you simply resolved to do
without them to get the patch in more quickly?
2. You set_timer() in hvm_do_IRQ_dpci(). Why is this necessary, given
that vmx_dirq_assist() does the same, and should run shortly after since you
vcpu_kick()? Is this to solve the delay between assigning a device to a new HVM
guest and when that HVM guest gets unpaused after it is fully constructed? In
that case we would be better to bail from hvm_do_IRQ_dpci() if the domain
‘is_paused_by_controller’, and return 0.
Thanks,
Keir
On 19/10/07 04:46, "Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Keir,
Thanks for your points. This is the updated patch. I have fixed 1,2,3,4 of your
comments.
Signed-off-by: Xin, Xiaohui<xiaohui.xin@xxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
From: Keir
Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 2007年10月18日 17:36
To: Xin, Xiaohui; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:
[Xen-devel][VTD][RESEND]add a timer for the shared interrupt issue for vt-d
Getting better, some more points:
1. The timeout values are bizarrely non-round (8192000). Do you really
need 4 significant figures of precision? Do you really mean for an 8ms timeout?
It would then be better to define as MILLISECS(8). Much clearer as it shows the
units.
2. You can’t stick timer_hvm[] in the generic common domain.c. It belongs
in the hvm_irq_dpci structure, making it clear it is HVM-specific, and also
meaning that memory for the array is only allocated for those domains that
actually have devices passed through to them.
3. The extra argument to hvm_dpci_eoi() is used only to decide whether to
stop_timer() or not. You’re aware you can call stop_timer() quite safely from
within the timeout callback handler? I think that means this extra argument is
unnecessary.
4. The comment added to hvm_pci_intx_assert() is delightfully vague. Also
I think it may be wrong ― do you really mean “before the driver loading, the
vioapic redir entry may be unmasked”?
So you need another spin. I’m still unconvinced that the hvm_pci_intx_assert()
changes are the right way to go, but I need to consider the patch some more to
see if there is a cleaner way. If there is I will modify the patch myself
before I check it in. The other points listed above you need to address
yourself.
-- Keir
On 17/10/07 14:44, "Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Keir,
It’s a resending patch for the timeout mechanism to deal with the shared
interrupt issue for vt-d enabled hvm guest.
We modify the patch following your comments last time and make some other small
fix:
1) We
don’t touch the locking around the hvm_dpci_eoi().
2) Remove
the HZ from the TIME_OUT_PERIOD macro which may confuse others.
3) Add
some explanation to the return value for the hvm_pci_intx_assert(), and the
has_timer parameter for the hvm_dpci_eoi.
We have tested it with shared interrupt between dom0/HVM(pcie/disk) and HVM/HVM(pcie/pcie).
Signed-off-by: Xin, Xiaohui<xiaohui.xin@xxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Home