On Fri, 07 May 2021 10:58:23 +0100,
Shaokun Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply.
>
> On 2021/5/7 17:03, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Fri, 07 May 2021 06:57:04 +0100,
> > Shaokun Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> [This letter comes from Nianyao Tang]
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Using GICv4/4.1 and msi capability, guest vf driver requires 3
> >> vectors and enable msi, will lead to guest stuck.
> >
> > Stuck how?
>
> Guest serial does not response anymore and guest network shutdown.
>
> >
> >> Qemu gets number of interrupts from Multiple Message Capable field
> >> set by guest. This field is aligned to a power of 2(if a function
> >> requires 3 vectors, it initializes it to 2).
> >
> > So I guess this is a MultiMSI device with 4 vectors, right?
> >
>
> Yes, it can support maximum of 32 msi interrupts, and vf driver only use 3
> msi.
>
> >> However, guest driver just sends 3 mapi-cmd to vits and 3 ite
> >> entries is recorded in host. Vfio initializes msi interrupts using
> >> the number of interrupts 4 provide by qemu. When it comes to the
> >> 4th msi without ite in vits, in irq_bypass_register_producer,
> >> producer and consumer will __connect fail, due to find_ite fail, and
> >> do not resume guest.
> >
> > Let me rephrase this to check that I understand it:
> > - The device has 4 vectors
> > - The guest only create mappings for 3 of them
> > - VFIO calls kvm_vgic_v4_set_forwarding() for each vector
> > - KVM doesn't have a mapping for the 4th vector and returns an error
> > - VFIO disable this 4th vector
> >
> > Is that correct? If yes, I don't understand why that impacts the guest
> > at all. From what I can see, vfio_msi_set_vector_signal() just prints
> > a message on the console and carries on.
> >
>
> function calls:
> --> vfio_msi_set_vector_signal
> --> irq_bypass_register_producer
> -->__connect
>
> in __connect, add_producer finally calls kvm_vgic_v4_set_forwarding
> and fails to get the 4th mapping. When add_producer fail, it does
> not call cons->start, calls kvm_arch_irq_bypass_start and then
> kvm_arm_resume_guest.
[+Eric, who wrote the irq_bypass infrastructure.]
Ah, so the guest is actually paused, not in a livelock situation
(which is how I interpreted "stuck").
I think we should handle this case gracefully, as there should be no
expectation that the guest will be using this interrupt. Given that
VFIO seems to be pretty unfazed when a producer fails, I'm temped to
do the same thing and restart the guest.
Also, __disconnect doesn't care about errors, so why should __connect
have this odd behaviour?
Can you please try this? It is completely untested (and I think the
del_consumer call is odd, which is why I've also dropped it).
Eric, what do you think?
Thanks,
M.
diff --git a/virt/lib/irqbypass.c b/virt/lib/irqbypass.c
index c9bb3957f58a..7e1865e15668 100644
--- a/virt/lib/irqbypass.c
+++ b/virt/lib/irqbypass.c
@@ -40,21 +40,14 @@ static int __connect(struct irq_bypass_producer *prod,
if (prod->add_consumer)
ret = prod->add_consumer(prod, cons);
- if (ret)
- goto err_add_consumer;
-
- ret = cons->add_producer(cons, prod);
- if (ret)
- goto err_add_producer;
+ if (!ret)
+ ret = cons->add_producer(cons, prod);
if (cons->start)
cons->start(cons);
if (prod->start)
prod->start(prod);
-err_add_producer:
- if (prod->del_consumer)
- prod->del_consumer(prod, cons);
-err_add_consumer:
+
return ret;
}
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
