Il 30/05/2013 15:35, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 03:23:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 30/05/2013 15:10, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:58:09PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>> Il 30/05/2013 14:34, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ah, we check kvm_apic_has_events() in runnable. Then yes, we will not
>>>>>>>>> lose the event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, then I'd prefer to have the cmpxchg directly in the if, as in
>>>>>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.kvm.devel/110505
>>>>>>>
>>>>> I still do not. Both of them are tricky, mine does not coalesce events
>>>>> needlessly.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed that both are tricky, but I don't think my patch is coalescing
>>>> events. If you have
>>>>
>>>> INIT SIPI INIT SIPI
>>>> ^ ^
>>>> INIT bit cleared here SIPI bit checked here
>>>>
>>> Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.
>>
>> I'll redo the picture below.
>>
>>>> my patch KVM sees apic_events = INIT | SIPI and deduces that the SIPI
>>>> bit was set by the second SIPI, not by the first. In fact the first
>>>> SIPI was cancelled by the second INIT, and thus should not be processed
>>>> at all.
>>> That is called coalesced.
>>
>> Coalescing would be something like INIT SIPI SIPI -> INIT SIPI. This is
>> not coalescing, it is proper detection of a cancelled SIPI. We have:
>>
>> event sent event processed pending_events
>> INIT INIT
>> SIPI INIT|SIPI
>> INIT SIPI
>> XX INIT INIT
>> SIPI INIT|SIPI
>> YY SIPI INIT|SIPI
>> failed cmpxchg INIT|SIPI
>> INIT SIPI
>> SIPI 0
>>
> At this point I am not even sure that you understand what problem the patch
> is fixing, because the bug is not event triggered by above sequence.
Maybe.
>> Because the first SIPI was dropped atomically with the triggering of the
>> second INIT, it's as if you were handling it twice.
>>
> No, you were slow to process first SIPI, so second INIT was sent because
> vcpu appears to be dead, so instead of processing both you process last.
Can you draw the events that happen?
What I drew above is based on the commit message. Instead what I
understand from this explanation is:
event sent event processed pending_events
INIT INIT
SIPI INIT|SIPI
INIT SIPI
SIPI 0
INIT INIT
SIPI INIT|SIPI
INIT SIPI
SIPI 0
Then my patch has absolutely no effect, the cmpxchg succeeds. With your
patch instead I get:
event sent event processed pending_events
INIT INIT
SIPI INIT|SIPI
INIT SIPI
SIPI ...
INIT INIT
SIPI INIT|SIPI
failed cmpxchg INIT|SIPI
INIT SIPI
SIPI ...
successful cmpxchg 0
But there is no difference in the actual set of events that was processed.
Paolo
--
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
