Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 23:13:56 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@siemens.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] kvm: Extend irqfd to support level interrupts
Message-ID: <20120625201356.GE11266@redhat.com>
References: <20120622220040.9858.43665.stgit@bling.home>
 <20120622221559.9858.59593.stgit@bling.home>
 <4FE6EC20.5030502@redhat.com>
 <1340551118.14120.66.camel@bling.home>
 <20120624154938.GE2851@redhat.com>
 <1340575167.5076.165.camel@bling.home>
 <20120624230251.GE17046@redhat.com>
 <1340641034.1207.28.camel@bling.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1340641034.1207.28.camel@bling.home>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2699
Lines: 57

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:17:14AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 02:02 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 03:59:27PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2012-06-24 at 18:49 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 09:18:38AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > > @@ -242,7 +299,8 @@ kvm_irqfd_assign(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_irqfd *args)
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  	ret = 0;
> > > > > > >  	list_for_each_entry(tmp, &kvm->irqfds.items, list) {
> > > > > > > -		if (irqfd->eventfd != tmp->eventfd)
> > > > > > > +		if (irqfd->eventfd != tmp->eventfd &&
> > > > > > > +		    irqfd->eventfd != tmp->eoi_eventfd)
> > > > > > >  			continue;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So we allow duplicate irqfd with differing eoifd (or edge-triggered and
> > > > > > level-triggered irqfd on the same context).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (why the check in the first place? just so we can have a reliable
> > > > > > deassign or is it avoiding a deeper problem?)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I really wasn't sure to what extent we wanted to prevent duplicates.  My
> > > > > guess was that we don't want to have an irqfd trigger more than one
> > > > > thing.  That seems to be what the current code does.  I don't see any
> > > > > problems with multiple irqfds triggering the same eventfd though.  I
> > > > > only added a test that a new irqfd can't be triggered by an existing
> > > > > eoi_eventfd as that could make a nasty loop.
> > > > 
> > > > How would that make a loop? You can have the same thing
> > > > with e.g. ioeventfd - why isn't it a problem there?
> > > 
> > > eoi_eventfd1 -> irqfd2 [eoi] eoi_eventfd2 -> irqfd1 [eoi] eoi_eventfd1 ->...
> > 
> > Sorry I don't understand.
> > What does this [eoi] mean? How is eoi eventfd different from ioeventfd?
> 
> [eoi] is simply the guest doing an EOI write.

So you trigger irq, later guest does an eoi etc. Why is this a loop?

>  There's some interaction
> required from the guest which could rate limit the loop.  I'm not really
> following your comparison to an ioeventfd.  If the question is can you
> create loops with an ioeventfd, I imagine the answer is probably so.

I think the answer is no.

>  I
> certainly don't plan on adding code to test every fd in use by a vm and
> validate it can't do crazy things, so if even this minor sanity test
> could prevent useful things, I'll happily remove it.  Thanks,
> 
> Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/