linux-kernel - Re: [patch 01/16] irqdomain: Introduce new interfaces to support hierarchy irqdomains

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <547344AA.1050202@huawei.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:46:02 +0800
From:	"Yun Wu (Abel)" <wuyun.wu@...wei.com>
To:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/16] irqdomain: Introduce new interfaces to support
 hierarchy irqdomains

On 2014/11/24 22:33, Jiang Liu wrote:

> On 2014/11/24 22:19, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>> On 2014/11/24 22:11, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014/11/24 22:01, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>>>> On 2014/11/24 21:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Thomas, Jiang,
>>>>>> On 2014/11/12 21:42, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>  /* Number of irqs reserved for a legacy isa controller */
>>>>>>>  #define NUM_ISA_INTERRUPTS	16
>>>>>>> @@ -64,6 +66,16 @@ struct irq_domain_ops {
>>>>>>>  	int (*xlate)(struct irq_domain *d, struct device_node *node,
>>>>>>>  		     const u32 *intspec, unsigned int intsize,
>>>>>>>  		     unsigned long *out_hwirq, unsigned int *out_type);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#ifdef	CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
>>>>>>> +	/* extended V2 interfaces to support hierarchy irq_domains */
>>>>>>> +	int (*alloc)(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int virq,
>>>>>>> +		     unsigned int nr_irqs, void *arg);
>>>>>>> +	void (*free)(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int virq,
>>>>>>> +		     unsigned int nr_irqs);
>>>>>>> +	void (*activate)(struct irq_domain *d, struct irq_data *irq_data);
>>>>>>> +	void (*deactivate)(struct irq_domain *d, struct irq_data *irq_data);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the usage of the parameter domain reference in activate/deactivate?
>>>>>> I think the purpose of the two callbacks is to activate/deactivate the
>>>>>> irq_data->hwirq in irq_data->domain. If so, the first parameter @domain is
>>>>>> required to be equal to irq_data->domain (which makes @domain useless).
>>>>>> Besides, the main responsibility of interrupt domains is to manage mappings
>>>>>> between hardware and linux interrupt numbers, so would it be better if move
>>>>>> the two callbacks into struct irq_chip?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. It's not a function of the irq_chip to activate/deactivate a
>>>>> hierarchy. As I explained you before:
>>>>>
>>>>> The existing irqdomain code maps between hardware and virtual
>>>>> interrupts and thereby activates the interrupt in hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the hierarchical case we do not touch the hardware in the
>>>>> allocation step, so we need to activate the allocated interrupt in the
>>>>> hardware before we can use it. And that's clearly a domain interface
>>>>> not a irq chip issue.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense, now the interrupt domain seems to be the best place.
>>>> And when the @domain parameter can be really useful? I haven't see
>>>> anyone using it so far.
>>> We will use it for IOAPIC on x86, as below:
>>> void mp_irqdomain_deactivate(struct irq_domain *domain,
>>>                              struct irq_data *irq_data)
>>> {
>>>         ioapic_mask_entry(mp_irqdomain_ioapic_idx(domain),
>>>                           (int)irq_data->hwirq);
>>> }
>>>
>>> >From an object oriented point of view, we pass the object as the
>>> first parameter. It's true that we could retrieve domain from
>>> irq_data->domain instead of explicitly passing it in, but that
>>> will cause irqdomain interfaces depends on irq_data, not sounds
>>> a good situation:)
>>
>> Hi Gerry,
>>
>> Is there any possibility that domain doesn't equal to irq_data->domain?
>> I'm a little confused..
> Hi Yun,
> 	Currently they are always the same, but we don't want irqdomain
> interfaces make assumption of struct irq_data. If it will bring big
> performance improvement, we will try to kill the first parameter,
> otherwise we may prefer keeping irqdomain interfaces clear.

OK, let's keep it as is. :)

Thanks,
	Abel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/