WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] irq_guest_eoi_timer interaction with MSI

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] irq_guest_eoi_timer interaction with MSI
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:42:59 +0000
Cc:
Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 01:43:21 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <491BFFED.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AclFdDaFdQQaMLFnEd2PJwAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] irq_guest_eoi_timer interaction with MSI
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122
A perfectly reasonable fix if you are not worried about guest-initiated irq
storms (e.g. because all devices are controlled by dom0) would be to remove
the eoi_timer logic. Otherwise we could relax it some (e.g., require N IRQs
to get stacked up rather than just 1; or add explicit rate limiting).

We only disable MSI when the device does not support masking. Perhaps we
should make disable/enable no-ops in that case?

 -- Keir

On 13/11/08 09:22, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> While awaiting final confirmation, all aspects of an issue with certain bnx2
> driven NICs known at this point suggest that the disabling of MSI when a
> second interrupt gets delivered without the first having progressed far
> enough in its handling to at least mask the corresponding event channel
> would cause the NIC to stop operating. We're being told that it is a chip
> limitation that it can't recover from MSI getting disabled and then
> re-enabled - it would switch into INTA mode when MSI gets disabled, but
> not switch back to MSI mode when MSI gets re-enabled.
> 
> While this arguably is a limitation that must be worked around in the driver,
> the logic here raises questions: Since other devices apparently have
> similar behavior in not disabling IRQ delivery upon IRQ assertion, wouldn't
> it to be expected that disabling IRQs for a millisecond could have severe
> impact on throughput of the device? Also, is it correct at all to disable MSI
> on a device - i.e., with the affected device going into INTA mode, don't
> we risk floods of spurious interrupts if the IO-APIC RTE the device is
> connected to is shared and happens to be unmasked?
> 
> Apart from that - wouldn't the stop_timer() call be carried out more
> correctly before calling desc->handler->disable(), so that we can be sure
> the disable actually has an effect?
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel