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-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] vIOSAPIC and IRQs delivery

To: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>, "Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] vIOSAPIC and IRQs delivery
From: Tristan Gingold <Tristan.Gingold@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:07:20 +0100
Delivery-date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:04:04 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <26F44F810A51DF42A127BC2A06BE185E03D650B4@pdsmsx404>
List-help: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-ia64-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-ia64-devel>, <mailto:xen-ia64-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <26F44F810A51DF42A127BC2A06BE185E03D650B4@pdsmsx404>
Sender: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.5
Le Mardi 07 Mars 2006 00:34, Dong, Eddie a écrit :
> Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) wrote:
> > Hi Tristan --
> >
> > Do you have any more design information?  I'm not very
> > familiar with the x86 implementation but is it your intent
> > for it to be (nearly) identical?  What would be different?
>
> The difference is that should guest OS (para xen) still access the
> IOSAPIC MMIO port?
> If the guest OS keeps accessing the machine IOSAPIC MMIO address,
> multiple driver domain share same IRQ has potential problem. The design
> in my opnion is that hypervisor own the machine IOSAPIC resource
> exclusively including reading IVR and issuing CR.EOI. All the guest is
> working with a pure virtual IOSAPIC or virtual IO_APIC (actually doesn't
> matter for guest).
[Note that IVR and CR.EOI are LSAPIC stuff.]

> > Would all hardware I/O interrupts require queueing by
> > Xen in an event channel?  This seems like it could be
> > a potential high overhead performance issue.
There are two things:
* delivery of IRQs through event channel.  I am not sure about performance 
impact (should be almost the same).  I am sure about linux modification 
impact (new files added, interrupt low-level handling completly modified).

* Use of callback for event channel (instead of an IRQ).
  I suppose it should be slightly faster.  I suppose this is required (for 
speed reasons) if we deliver IRQs through event-channel.

> Mmm, I have different opnion here. With all guest physical IRQ queueing
> by Xen event channel through a bitmap that is shared in para-guest, the
> guest OS no longer needs to access IVR and EOI now, that means we don't
> need to trap into hypervisor. Checking the bitmap is defenitely higher
> performance than read IVR, in this way the performance is improved
> actually.
I really think this is not that obvious due to hyper-privop and 
hyper-reflexion.
  
> In the meantime, we don't need to spend time to re-design the vIOSAPIC,
> it could be same with X86 vIO_APIC (90%). Definitely somebody need to
> write down the vIO_APIC design :-)
>
> Tristan or me can do that, Tristan?
Please start (maybe using some mails we have exchanged).  I will complete if 
necessary.

Tristan.



_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel