On Fri, 25 May 2012, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 06:53:15PM -0300, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > On 2012-05-24 18:39, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 24 May 2012, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 18:02 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > >>> + if (address == msi_start + PCI_MSI_DATA_32)
> > > >>> + handle_cfg_write_msi(pci_dev, assigned_dev);
> > > >>
> > > >> Why didn't we just use range_covers_byte(address, len, pci_dev->msi_cap
> > > >> + PCI_MSI_DATA_32) to start with? But how does this handle the enable
> > > >> bit?
> > > >
> > > > The problem with the current implementation is that it only changes
> > > > the routing if the msi entry goes from masked to unmasked state.
> > > >
> > > > Linux does not mask the entries on affinity changes and never did,
> > > > neither for MSI nor for MSI-X.
> > > >
> > > > I know it's probably not according to the spec, but we can't fix that
> > > > retroactively.
> > >
> > > For MSI, this is allowed. For MSI-X, this would clearly be a Linux bug,
> > > waiting for hardware to dislike this spec violation.
> > >
> > > However, if this is the current behavior of such a prominent guest, I
> > > guess we have to stop optimizing the QEMU MSI-X code that it only
> > > updates routings on mask changes. Possibly other OSes get this wrong
> > > too...
> >
> > Very strange, a clear spec violation. I'll have to dig in the source to
> > verify this.
>
> Stop digging. MSI-X is correct.
This was based off an older version of qemu-kvm, where the routing for
MSI-X was broken for other reasons. But that seems to be fixed now.
I use the age excuse :)
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
