Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Salvatore Bonaccorso <salvatore.bonaccorso@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 08:37:30 +0200
From:   Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Dusty Mabe <dustymabe@redhat.com>, Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>, x86@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [tip: irq/urgent] PCI/MSI: Mask MSI-X vectors only on success
Message-ID: <YmuHqi5K/P8QWYyO@eldamar.lan>
References: <20211210161025.3287927-1-sr@denx.de>
 <163948488617.23020.3934435568065766936.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
 <Yi9vH2F2OBDprwd8@jpiotrowski-Surface-Book-3>
 <43418c23-5efd-4d14-706f-f536c504b75a@denx.de>
 <c4a65b9a-d1e2-bf0d-2519-aac7185931d5@redhat.com>
 <Yi+lwVRTu8xxi9Gy@jpiotrowski-Surface-Book-3>
 <Ymj3zzjQ9PwYaX/p@eldamar.lan>
 <87v8uuwhs4.ffs@tglx>
 <87wnf9uxnw.ffs@tglx>
 <YmrgO09bqePgiJJd@eldamar.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YmrgO09bqePgiJJd@eldamar.lan>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 08:43:10PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 03:48:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27 2022 at 19:35, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27 2022 at 09:59, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > > XEN guests do not use the common PCI mask/unmask machinery which would
> > > unmask the interrupt on request_irq().
> > >
> > > So I assume that the following happens:
> > >
> > > Guest                     Hypervisor
> > >
> > > msix_capabilities_init()
> > >         ....
> > >         alloc_irq()
> > >            xen_magic()  -> alloc_msix_interrupt()
> > >                            request_irq()
> > >
> > >         msix_mask_all() -> trap
> > >                              do_magic()
> > > request_irq()
> > >    unmask()
> > >      xen_magic()
> > >        unmask_evtchn()  -> do_more_magic()
> > >
> > > So I assume further that msix_mask_all() actually is able to mask the
> > > interrupts in the hardware (ctrl word of the vector table) despite the
> > > hypervisor having allocated and requested the interrupt already.
> > >
> > > Nothing in XEN_HVM handles PCI/MSI[-X] mask/unmask in the guest, so I
> > > really have to ask why XEN_HVM does not disable PCI/MSI[-X] masking like
> > > XEN_PV does. I can only assume the answer is voodoo...
> > >
> > > Maybe the XEN people have some more enlightened answers to that.
> > 
> > So I was talking to Juergen about this and he agrees, that for the case
> > where a XEN HVM guest uses the PIRQ/Eventchannel mechanism PCI/MSI[-X]
> > masking should be disabled like it is done for XEN PV.
> > 
> > Why the hypervisor grants the mask write is still mysterious, but I
> > leave that to the folks who can master the XEN voodoo.
> > 
> > I'll send out a patch in minute.
> 
> Thank you. We are having Noah Meyerhans now testing the patch and he
> will report back if it works (Cc'ed here now).

To confirm: Noah tested the patch on various different Xen (and other
VM configurations) and works well.

Regards,
Salvatore