>>> On 14.11.11 at 15:20, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 14.11.11 at 14:59, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 14/11/11 08:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 11.11.11 at 18:13, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/11 16:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> Following the prevention of vector sharing for MSIs, this change
>>>>> enforces the same within IO-APICs: Pin based interrupts use the IO-APIC
>>>>> as their identifying device under the AMD IOMMU (and just like for
>>>>> MSIs, only the identifying device is used to remap interrupts here,
>>>>> with no regard to an interrupt's destination).
>>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, LAPIC initiated EOIs (for level triggered interrupts) too
>>>>> use only the vector for identifying which interrupts to end. While this
>>>>> generally causes no significant problem (at worst an interrupt would be
>>>>> re-raised without a new interrupt event actually having occurred)
>>>> At worst, hardware asserts a line interrupt, deasserts it later, and an
>>>> EOI broadcast gets rid of any record that the IRQ was ever raised.
>>>> While I would classify this as buggy behavior, I believe I have seen
>>>> some hardware doing this when investigating the line level IRQ migration
>>>> bug, as clearing the IRR did not immediately cause another interrupt to
>>>> be generated.
>>>>
>>>>> , it
>>>>> still seems better to avoid the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> For this second aspect, a distinction is being made between the
>>>>> traditional and the directed-EOI cases: In the former, vectors should
>>>>> not be shared throughout all IO-APICs in the system, while in the
>>>>> latter case only individual IO-APICs need to be contrained (or, if the
>>>>> firmware indicates so, sub- groups of them having the same GSI appear
>>>>> at multiple pins).
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> Provisional nack because it is my understanding that under all
>>>> circumstances, you must maintain a vector exclusivity map across all
>>>> IO-APICs because of the broadcast problem. Or have I made a mistake in
>>>> my reasoning?
>>> With directed EOI there's no broadcasting involved, which is why
>>> global sharing prevention is not necessary.
>>>
>>> However, after some more thinking over the weekend I think we need
>>> to also/first adjust end_level_ioapic_irq()'s call to io_apic_eoi_vector():
>>> It shouldn't really iterate over all IO-APICs, but instead call
>>> eoi_IO_APIC_irq(). Thoughts? (That would also eliminate the need to
>>> look up pin or vector in __io_apic_eoi(), as all remaining call sites pass
>>> both.)
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>> I believe that should work. By the point end_level_ioapic_irq() is
>> called, all the irq_desc information should point to the new vector, so
>> eoi_IO_APIC_irq() should get it correct. At the time I made that patch,
>> I was not so familiar with the IO-APIC code so decided that calling
>> io_apic_eoi was the safer bet.
>
> I'm having some more fundamental problem with this original change
> of yours: The assignment of the new vector happens in the context
> of move_native_irq(), which gets called *after* doing the manual
> EOI (and hence also *after* the vector != desc->arch.vector check).
> How does that do what it is supposed to?
>
> (Below the [untested] patch that I would propose to do what I described
> above, pending your clarification regarding the original change.)
Here is one that actually compiles (and does even more cleanup, as
pointed out by the compiler).
Jan
--- a/xen/arch/x86/io_apic.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/io_apic.c
@@ -69,10 +69,6 @@ int __read_mostly nr_ioapics;
#define ioapic_has_eoi_reg(apic) (mp_ioapics[(apic)].mpc_apicver >= 0x20)
-#define io_apic_eoi_vector(apic, vector) io_apic_eoi((apic), (vector), -1)
-#define io_apic_eoi_pin(apic, pin) io_apic_eoi((apic), -1, (pin))
-
-
/*
* This is performance-critical, we want to do it O(1)
*
@@ -213,21 +209,18 @@ static void ioapic_write_entry(
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioapic_lock, flags);
}
-/* EOI an IO-APIC entry. One of vector or pin may be -1, indicating that
- * it should be worked out using the other. This function expect that the
- * ioapic_lock is taken, and interrupts are disabled (or there is a good reason
- * not to), and that if both pin and vector are passed, that they refer to the
+/* EOI an IO-APIC entry. Vector may be -1, indicating that it should be
+ * worked out using the pin. This function expects that the ioapic_lock is
+ * being held, and interrupts are disabled (or there is a good reason not
+ * to), and that if both pin and vector are passed, that they refer to the
* same redirection entry in the IO-APIC. */
static void __io_apic_eoi(unsigned int apic, unsigned int vector, unsigned int
pin)
{
- /* Ensure some useful information is passed in */
- BUG_ON( (vector == -1 && pin == -1) );
-
/* Prefer the use of the EOI register if available */
if ( ioapic_has_eoi_reg(apic) )
{
/* If vector is unknown, read it from the IO-APIC */
- if ( vector == -1 )
+ if ( vector == IRQ_VECTOR_UNASSIGNED )
vector = __ioapic_read_entry(apic, pin, TRUE).vector;
*(IO_APIC_BASE(apic)+16) = vector;
@@ -239,42 +232,6 @@ static void __io_apic_eoi(unsigned int a
struct IO_APIC_route_entry entry;
bool_t need_to_unmask = 0;
- /* If pin is unknown, search for it */
- if ( pin == -1 )
- {
- unsigned int p;
- for ( p = 0; p < nr_ioapic_entries[apic]; ++p )
- {
- entry = __ioapic_read_entry(apic, p, TRUE);
- if ( entry.vector == vector )
- {
- pin = p;
- /* break; */
-
- /* Here should be a break out of the loop, but at the
- * Xen code doesn't actually prevent multiple IO-APIC
- * entries being assigned the same vector, so EOI all
- * pins which have the correct vector.
- *
- * Remove the following code when the above assertion
- * is fulfilled. */
- __io_apic_eoi(apic, vector, p);
- }
- }
-
- /* If search fails, nothing to do */
-
- /* if ( pin == -1 ) */
-
- /* Because the loop wasn't broken out of (see comment above),
- * all relevant pins have been EOI, so we can always return.
- *
- * Re-instate the if statement above when the Xen logic has been
- * fixed.*/
-
- return;
- }
-
entry = __ioapic_read_entry(apic, pin, TRUE);
if ( ! entry.mask )
@@ -301,17 +258,6 @@ static void __io_apic_eoi(unsigned int a
}
}
-/* EOI an IO-APIC entry. One of vector or pin may be -1, indicating that
- * it should be worked out using the other. This function disables interrupts
- * and takes the ioapic_lock */
-static void io_apic_eoi(unsigned int apic, unsigned int vector, unsigned int
pin)
-{
- unsigned int flags;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&ioapic_lock, flags);
- __io_apic_eoi(apic, vector, pin);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioapic_lock, flags);
-}
-
/*
* Saves all the IO-APIC RTE's
*/
@@ -1693,11 +1639,7 @@ static void end_level_ioapic_irq(struct
/* Manually EOI the old vector if we are moving to the new */
if ( vector && i != vector )
- {
- int ioapic;
- for (ioapic = 0; ioapic < nr_ioapics; ioapic++)
- io_apic_eoi_vector(ioapic, i);
- }
+ eoi_IO_APIC_irq(desc);
v = apic_read(APIC_TMR + ((i & ~0x1f) >> 1));
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home