On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:39:52AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.03.2023 00:19, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> So yes, it then all boils down to that Linux-
> >> internal question.
> >
> > Excellent question but we'll have to wait for Ray as he is the one with
> > access to the hardware. But I have this data I can share in the
> > meantime:
> >
> > [ 1.260378] IRQ to pin mappings:
> > [ 1.260387] IRQ1 -> 0:1
> > [ 1.260395] IRQ2 -> 0:2
> > [ 1.260403] IRQ3 -> 0:3
> > [ 1.260410] IRQ4 -> 0:4
> > [ 1.260418] IRQ5 -> 0:5
> > [ 1.260425] IRQ6 -> 0:6
> > [ 1.260432] IRQ7 -> 0:7
> > [ 1.260440] IRQ8 -> 0:8
> > [ 1.260447] IRQ9 -> 0:9
> > [ 1.260455] IRQ10 -> 0:10
> > [ 1.260462] IRQ11 -> 0:11
> > [ 1.260470] IRQ12 -> 0:12
> > [ 1.260478] IRQ13 -> 0:13
> > [ 1.260485] IRQ14 -> 0:14
> > [ 1.260493] IRQ15 -> 0:15
> > [ 1.260505] IRQ106 -> 1:8
> > [ 1.260513] IRQ112 -> 1:4
> > [ 1.260521] IRQ116 -> 1:13
> > [ 1.260529] IRQ117 -> 1:14
> > [ 1.260537] IRQ118 -> 1:15
> > [ 1.260544] .................................... done.
>
> And what does Linux think are IRQs 16 ... 105? Have you compared with
> Linux running baremetal on the same hardware?
So I have some emails from Ray from he time he was looking into this,
and on Linux dom0 PVH dmesg there is:
[ 0.065063] IOAPIC[0]: apic_id 33, version 17, address 0xfec00000, GSI 0-23
[ 0.065096] IOAPIC[1]: apic_id 34, version 17, address 0xfec01000, GSI 24-55
So it seems the vIO-APIC data provided by Xen to dom0 is at least
consistent.
> > And I think Ray traced the point in Linux where Linux gives us an IRQ ==
> > 112 (which is the one causing issues):
> >
> > __acpi_register_gsi->
> > acpi_register_gsi_ioapic->
> > mp_map_gsi_to_irq->
> > mp_map_pin_to_irq->
> > __irq_resolve_mapping()
> >
> > if (likely(data)) {
> > desc = irq_data_to_desc(data);
> > if (irq)
> > *irq = data->irq;
> > /* this IRQ is 112, IO-APIC-34 domain */
> > }
Could this all be a result of patch 4/5 in the Linux series ("[RFC
PATCH 4/5] x86/xen: acpi registers gsi for xen pvh"), where a different
__acpi_register_gsi hook is installed for PVH in order to setup GSIs
using PHYSDEV ops instead of doing it natively from the IO-APIC?
FWIW, the introduced function in that patch
(acpi_register_gsi_xen_pvh()) seems to unconditionally call
acpi_register_gsi_ioapic() without checking if the GSI is already
registered, which might lead to multiple IRQs being allocated for the
same underlying GSI?
As I commented there, I think that approach is wrong. If the GSI has
not been mapped in Xen (because dom0 hasn't unmasked the respective
IO-APIC pin) we should add some logic in the toolstack to map it
before attempting to bind.
Thanks, Roger.
