Keir,
How about the status of the
patch now or any other comments?
Thanks
Xiaohui
From:
Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 2007年10月3日
16:27
To: Kay, Allen M; Xin, Xiaohui;
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel]
[VTD][PATCH] a time out mechanism for thesharedinterrupt issue for vtd
I’m thinking about
it. I’ll probably put it in in some form later this week.
-- Keir
On 3/10/07 00:56, "Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Keir,
Do you have any other
issues with this patch? This patch should fix a lot of shared interrupt
related failures our QA team has encountered.
Allen
From:
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Kay, Allen M
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007
5:07 PM
To: Keir Fraser; Xin,
Xiaohui; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel]
[VTD][PATCH] a time out mechanism for thesharedinterrupt issue for
vtd
Xiaohui and Kevin will be
out for about a week for national holiday. I have looked into the
issues you raised:
1) Looks like irq_lock
changes in vioapic_update_EOI() and hvm_dpci_eoi() are not needed.
You can go ahead and remove them.
2) The change for hvm_pci_intx_assert()
seems to be needed by vmx/vmx_dirq_assist(). It is passing the
return value of viopic_irq_positive_edge() to convey info such as whether
the interrupt is masked or not. In vmx_dpirq_assist(), the return
value is used to determine whether to deassert the interrupt or wait for
the interrupt for some more time. If the return value is 0, it mean
the interrupt is still masked by the guest - guest is not ready to accept
interrupt yet - so it deasserts the interrupt.
My test shows it handles
shared interrupt cases including ioapic_ack=new (by temporarily
commenting out ioapic_ack_new = 0) pretty well thus fixes a major
deficiency in PCI passthru functionality.
Allen
From:
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007
1:41 AM
To: Xin, Xiaohui;
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel]
[VTD][PATCH] a time out mechanism for the sharedinterrupt issue for
vtd
Why does the irq_lock need to be released before taking the desc->lock
in pirq_guest_eoi()? What does the new return boolean from
hvm_pci_intx_assert() mean?
-- Keir
On 30/9/07 08:29, "Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Attached is a patch for shared interrupt between
dom0 and HVM domain for vtd.
Most of problem is caused by that we should inject interrupt to both
domains and the
physical interrupt deassertion then may be delayed by the device assigned
to the HVM.
The patch adds a timer, and the time out value is sufficient large to
tolerant
the delaying used to wait for the physical interrupt deassertion.
The patch works well with the situation that SATA disk shares interrupt
with PCIe NIC.
And for vtd=1, the ioapic_ack=new method also works well.
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