On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:42:01PM +0000, Zhang, Yang Z wrote:
> >>>>          local_irq_disable();
> >>>> +        kvm_x86_ops->posted_intr_clear_on(vcpu);
> >>>> +
> >>> Why is this separate from pir_to_irr syncing?
> >> This is the result of discussion with Marcelo. It is more reasonable to
> >> put it here to avoid unnecessary posted interrupt between:
> >> 
> >> vcpu->mode = IN_GUEST_MODE;
> >> 
> >> <--interrupt may arrived here and this is unnecessary.
> >> 
> >> local_irq_disable();
> >> 
> > 
> > But this still can happen as far as I see:
> > 
> > vcpu0                                         vcpu1:
> > pi_test_and_set_pir() kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT)
> >                                             if (KVM_REQ_EVENT)
> >                                                    sync_pir_to_irr()
> >                                             vcpu->mode =
> > IN_GUEST_MODE;
> > if (vcpu->mode == IN_GUEST_MODE)
> >   if (!pi_test_and_set_on())
> >     apic->send_IPI_mask()
> >                                             --> IPI arrives here
> >                                             local_irq_disable();
> >                                             posted_intr_clear_on()
> Current solution is trying to block other Posted Interrupt from other VCPUs 
> at same time. It only mitigates it but cannot solve it. The case you 
> mentioned still exists but it should be rare.
> 
I am not sure I follow. What scenario exactly are you talking about. I
looked over past discussion about it and saw that Marcelo gives an
example how IPI can be lost, but I think that's because we set "on" bit
after KVM_REQ_EVENT:

cpu0                                    cpu1            vcpu0
test_and_set_bit(PIR-A)
set KVM_REQ_EVENT
                                                        process REQ_EVENT
                                                        PIR-A->IRR

                                                        vcpu->mode=IN_GUEST

if (vcpu0->guest_mode)
        if (!t_a_s_bit(PIR notif))
                send IPI
                                                        linux_pir_handler

                                        t_a_s_b(PIR-B)=1
                                        no PIR IPI sent


But what if on delivery we do:
pi_test_and_set_pir()
r = pi_test_and_set_on()
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT)
if (!r)
   send_IPI_mask()
else
   kvm_vcpu_kick()

And on vcpu entry we do:
if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT)
 if (test_and_clear_bit(on))
   kvm_apic_update_irr()

What are the downsides? Can we lost interrupts this way?

> > May be move vcpu->mode = IN_GUEST_MODE after local_irq_disable()?
> Yes, this will solve it. But I am not sure whether it will introduce any 
> regressions. Is there any check relies on this sequence?
>       
Do not think so.

--
                        Gleb.
--
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

Reply via email to