[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] virtio-mmio: add MSI interrupt featu

From: Jason Wang
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] virtio-mmio: add MSI interrupt feature support
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 20:04:24 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

On 2020/2/11 下午7:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 03:40:23PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/2/11 下午2:02, Liu, Jing2 wrote:
On 2/11/2020 12:02 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/2/11 上午11:35, Liu, Jing2 wrote:
On 2/11/2020 11:17 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2020/2/10 下午5:05, Zha Bin wrote:
From: Liu Jiang<address@hidden>

Userspace VMMs (e.g. Qemu microvm, Firecracker) take
advantage of using
virtio over mmio devices as a lightweight machine model for modern
cloud. The standard virtio over MMIO transport layer
only supports one
legacy interrupt, which is much heavier than virtio over
PCI transport
layer using MSI. Legacy interrupt has long work path and
causes specific
VMExits in following cases, which would considerably slow down the

1) read interrupt status register
2) update interrupt status register
3) write IOAPIC EOI register

We proposed to add MSI support for virtio over MMIO via new feature
bit VIRTIO_F_MMIO_MSI[1] which increases the interrupt performance.

With the VIRTIO_F_MMIO_MSI feature bit supported, the virtio-mmio MSI
uses msi_sharing[1] to indicate the event and vector mapping.
Bit 1 is 0: device uses non-sharing and fixed vector per
event mapping.
Bit 1 is 1: device uses sharing mode and dynamic mapping.
I believe dynamic mapping should cover the case of fixed vector?

Actually this bit*aims*  for msi sharing or msi non-sharing.

It means, when msi sharing bit is 1, device doesn't want vector
per queue

(it wants msi vector sharing as name) and doesn't want a high
interrupt rate.

So driver turns to !per_vq_vectors and has to do dynamical mapping.

So they are opposite not superset.


I think you need add more comments on the command.

E.g if I want to map vector 0 to queue 1, how do I need to do?

write(1, queue_sel);
write(0, vector_sel);
That's true. Besides, two commands are used for msi sharing mode,


"To set up the event and vector mapping for MSI sharing mode, driver
SHOULD write a valid MsiVecSel followed by
map the configuration change/selected queue events respectively.  " (See
spec patch 5/5)

So if driver detects the msi sharing mode, when it does setup vq, writes
the queue_sel (this already exists in setup vq), vector sel and then
MAP_QUEUE command to do the queue event mapping.

So actually the per vq msix could be done through this. I don't get why you
need to introduce MSI_SHARING_MASK which is the charge of driver instead of
device. The interrupt rate should have no direct relationship with whether
it has been shared or not.

Btw, you introduce mask/unmask without pending, how to deal with the lost
interrupt during the masking then?
pending can be an internal device register. as long as device
does not lose interrupts while masked, all's well.

You meant raise the interrupt during unmask automatically?

There's value is being able to say "this queue sends no
interrupts do not bother checking used notification area".
so we need way to say that. So I guess an enable interrupts
register might have some value...
But besides that, it's enough to have mask/unmask/address/data
per vq.

Just to check, do you mean "per vector" here?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]