Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

n-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > >>> On 24.09.15 at 03:50, <feng...@intel.com> wrote: > > One issue is the number of vmexits is far far bigger than the number of > > context switch. I test it for a quite sho

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

>>> On 24.09.15 at 03:50, wrote: > One issue is the number of vmexits is far far bigger than the number of > context switch. I test it for a quite short time and it shows there are > 2910043 vmexits and 71733 context switch (only count the number in > __context_switch() since

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5:00 PM > >>> To: Wu, Feng > >>> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Dario Faggioli; George Dunlap; George Dunlap; Tian, > >> Kevin; > >>> xen-devel@lists.xen.org;

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

ge Dunlap; Tian, Kevin; >> xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Keir Fraser >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >> logic >> handling >> >> On 09/22/2015 03:01 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 22.09.15 at 15:40, <feng...@inte

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

>>> On 23.09.15 at 17:25, wrote: > So, at the moment my *advice* is to look into setting SN / NDST on > vmexit/vmentry, and only having hooks at block/unblock. > > However, the __context_switch() path is also OK with me, if Jan and > Dario are happy. > > Jan / Dario,

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

bject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > > > Yes, we can go to blocked only from running state. let me clarify a > > question first: Xen doesn't support kernel preemption, right? > > > No, it does not. > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 06:35 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com] > > On 09/22/2015 08:19 AM, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > In the arch_block() hook, we actually need to > > > - Put vCPU to the blocking list > > > - Set the NV to wakeup vector > > > - Set

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

ay, September 21, 2015 10:25 PM > >> To: Wu, Feng; George Dunlap; George Dunlap > >> Cc: Jan Beulich; Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Andrew Cooper; > >> xen-devel@lists.xen.org > >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logi

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

bject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > > > I cannot think the bad effect of the spurious PI as well. I was just > > a little > > confused about we can do this and why we don't do this. Maybe > > context_switch()

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 05:52 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > George & Dario, thanks much for sharing so many scheduler knowledge > to me, it is very useful. > Well, we're lucky enough that it's our job to do that. :-D > > > So the only downside to doing everything in block(), wake(), and > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 01:50 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com] > > This seems to me to be a cleaner design. It removes the need to > > modify > > any code on context-switch path. It moves modification of NDST and > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

: Wu, Feng >>> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Dario Faggioli; George Dunlap; George Dunlap; Tian, >> Kevin; >>> xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Keir Fraser >>> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >>> logic >>> handling >>&

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

esday, September 23, 2015 5:44 PM > >> To: Jan Beulich; Wu, Feng > >> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Dario Faggioli; George Dunlap; Tian, Kevin; > >> xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Keir Fraser > >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

e: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > On 09/22/2015 02:25 PM, Wu, Feng wrote: > >>> But if we want to avoid spurious PI interrupts when running idle, then > >>> yes, we need *some* kind of a hook on the lazy con

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

e: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 15:15 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > > On 09/22/2015 02:52 PM, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

>>> On 22.09.15 at 09:19, wrote: > However, I do find some issues with my proposal above, see below: > > 1. Set _VPF_blocked > 2. ret = arch_block() > 3. if ( ret || local_events_need_delivery() ) > clear_bit(_VPF_blocked, >pause_flags); > > After step #2, if ret ==

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

e: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 12:22 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com] > > > > You a

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

e: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 13:25 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com] > > > Speci

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

aggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] > >>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:12 PM > >>> To: Wu, Feng; George Dunlap > >>> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; George Dunlap; > Andrew > >>> Cooper; Jan Beulich > >&

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 13:25 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com] > Specifically, consider the following scheduling case happened on > pCPUA: > vCPUA --> idle --> vCPUB > > 1. First, vCPUA is running on pCPUA, so the

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

evel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > >>> On 22.09.15 at 09:19, <feng...@intel.com> wrote: > > However, I do find some issues with my proposal above, see below: > > > > 1. Set _VPF_blocked >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

; Keir Fraser; George Dunlap; Andrew >> Cooper; Jan Beulich >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >> logic >> handling >> >> On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 13:50 +, Wu, Feng wrote: >>> >>>> -Original Message

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

; Keir Fraser; Andrew Cooper; >> xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >> logic >> handling >> >> On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 12:22 +, Wu, Feng wrote: >>> >>>> -Original Message--

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

Feng; George Dunlap >>> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; George Dunlap; Andrew >>> Cooper; Jan Beulich >>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >>> logic >>> handling >>> >>> O

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

lap; George Dunlap; Tian, > Kevin; >> xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Keir Fraser >> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >> logic >> handling >> >> >>> On 22.09.15 at 09:19, <feng...@intel.com> wrote: >> &

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

; Keir Fraser; George Dunlap; Andrew >> Cooper; Jan Beulich >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >> logic >> handling >> >> On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 13:25 +, Wu, Feng wrote: >>> >> >>>> -Original Me

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On 09/22/2015 02:25 PM, Wu, Feng wrote: >>> But if we want to avoid spurious PI interrupts when running idle, then >>> yes, we need *some* kind of a hook on the lazy context switch path. >>> >>> /me does some more thinking... >> >> To be honest, since we'll be get spurious PI interrupts in the >>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Tue, 2015-09-22 at 15:15 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 09/22/2015 02:52 PM, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] > > > Yes, the idle to vCPUB switch is covered by __context_switch(), > > > but > > it cannot

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

e: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 13:50 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] > > > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 11:59 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com] > > > I think the handling for lazy context switch is not only for the > > > blocking case, > > > we still need to do something for lazy context switch

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

eptember 17, 2015 5:38 PM > >> To: Dario Faggioli; Wu, Feng > >> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; George Dunlap; > Andrew > >> Cooper; Jan Beulich > >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

e: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 11:59 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com] > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 12:22 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com] > > You also need to check that local_events_need_delivery() will > > return > > "true" if you get an interrupt between that time and entering the > >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 13:50 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] > > Note that, in case of preemptions, we are switching from a non-idle > > vcpu to another, non-idle, vcpu, so lazy context switching to the > > idle >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

e Dunlap; Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Andrew Cooper; >> xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Wu, Feng >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >> logic >> handling >> >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, George Dunlap >> <george.d

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

t;> Dunlap > >> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 10:34 PM > >> To: Dario Faggioli > >> Cc: Jan Beulich; George Dunlap; Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; Andrew Cooper; > >> xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Wu, Feng > >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

; Keir Fraser; George Dunlap; Andrew >> Cooper; Jan Beulich >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core >> logic >> handling >> >> On 09/17/2015 09:48 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>> On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 08:00 +

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

g; Wu, Feng > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core > logic > handling > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, George Dunlap > <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > >> As said, me too. Perhaps we can go for option 1, which is

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

>>> George Dunlap 09/17/15 4:30 PM >>> >On 09/17/2015 01:40 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote: >So one option is to do the "blocking" stuff in an arch-specific call >from vcpu_block(): > >vcpu_block() >set(_VPF_blocked) >v->arch.block() >- Add v to pcpu.pi_blocked_vcpu >-

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 00:27 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > George Dunlap 09/17/15 4:30 PM >>>The > > > > vcpu_block() > >set(_VPF_blocked) > >v->arch.block() > >- Add v to pcpu.pi_blocked_vcpu > >- NV => pi_wakeup_vector > >local_events_need_delivery() >

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:31 PM, George Dunlap wrote: >> As said, me too. Perhaps we can go for option 1, which is simpler, >> cleaner and more consistent, considering the current status of the >> code. We can always investigate, in future, whether and how to >>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-18 at 00:27 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > George Dunlap 09/17/15 4:30 PM >>>The > >> > > > vcpu_block() >> >set(_VPF_blocked) >> >v->arch.block() >> >- Add v to

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

> -Original Message- > From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:18 AM > To: Wu, Feng > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; George Dunlap; Andrew > Cooper; Jan Beulich > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

> -Original Message- > From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 4:48 PM > To: Wu, Feng > Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Tian, Kevin; Keir Fraser; George Dunlap; Andrew > Cooper; Jan Beulich > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On 09/17/2015 10:38 AM, George Dunlap wrote: > Is it the case that the interrupt is not actually delivered to the > processor, but that the pending bit will be set in the pi field, so that > the interrupt will be delivered the next time the hypervisor returns > into the guest? > > (I am assuming

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On 09/17/2015 10:38 AM, George Dunlap wrote: > On 09/17/2015 09:48 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote: >> On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 08:00 +, Wu, Feng wrote: >> -Original Message- From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] >> So, I guess, first of all, can you confirm

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 08:00 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] > > So, I guess, first of all, can you confirm whether or not it's exploding > > in debug builds? > > Does the following information in Config.mk mean it

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On 09/17/2015 09:48 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 08:00 +, Wu, Feng wrote: > >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] > >>> So, I guess, first of all, can you confirm whether or not it's exploding >>> in debug builds? >>

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 12:44 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 09/17/2015 10:38 AM, George Dunlap wrote: > > Is it the case that the interrupt is not actually delivered to the > > processor, but that the pending bit will be set in the pi field, so that > > the interrupt will be delivered the next

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 15:30 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 09/17/2015 01:40 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > >> I haven't yet decided whether I prefer my original suggestion of > >> switching the interrupt and putting things on the wake-up list in > >> vcpu_block(), or of deferring adding things to

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On 09/17/2015 01:40 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 12:44 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 10:38 AM, George Dunlap wrote: >>> Is it the case that the interrupt is not actually delivered to the >>> processor, but that the pending bit will be set in the pi field, so

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 16:29 +0800, Feng Wu wrote: > CC: Keir Fraser > CC: Jan Beulich > CC: Andrew Cooper > CC: Kevin Tian > CC: George Dunlap > CC: Dario Faggioli

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 19:18 +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 16:29 +0800, Feng Wu wrote: > > One remaining item: > > Jan has concern about calling vcpu_unblock() in vmx_pre_ctx_switch_pi(), > > need Dario or George's input about this. > > > Hi, > > Sorry for the delay in

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 16:29 +0800, Feng Wu wrote: > This patch includes the following aspects: > - Handling logic when vCPU is blocked: > * Add a global vector to wake up the blocked vCPU > when an interrupt is being posted to it (This part > was sugguested by Yang Zhang

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v7 15/17] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling

This patch includes the following aspects: - Handling logic when vCPU is blocked: * Add a global vector to wake up the blocked vCPU when an interrupt is being posted to it (This part was sugguested by Yang Zhang ). * Define two per-cpu variables: