Message-ID: <54777EA1.3030508@linaro.org>
Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 19:42:25 +0000
From:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@...bosch.com>,
	Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
	Dmitry Pervushin <dpervushin@...il.com>,
	Tim Sander <tim@...eglstein.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.18-rc4 v10 4/6] irqchip: gic: Introduce plumbing for
 IPI FIQ

On 27/11/14 18:06, Jason Cooper wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 01:39:01PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> On 26/11/14 17:42, Jason Cooper wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:23:28PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>>>> Currently it is not possible to exploit FIQ for systems with a GIC, even if
>>>> the systems are otherwise capable of it. This patch makes it possible
>>>> for IPIs to be delivered using FIQ.
>>>>
>>>> To do so it modifies the register state so that normal interrupts are
>>>> placed in group 1 and specific IPIs are placed into group 0. It also
>>>> configures the controller to raise group 0 interrupts using the FIQ
>>>> signal. It provides a means for architecture code to define which IPIs
>>>> shall use FIQ and to acknowledge any IPIs that are raised.
>>>>
>>>> All GIC hardware except GICv1-without-TrustZone support provides a means
>>>> to group exceptions into group 0 and group 1 but the hardware
>>>> functionality is unavailable to the kernel when a secure monitor is
>>>> present because access to the grouping registers are prohibited outside
>>>> "secure world". However when grouping is not available (or in the case
>>>> of early GICv1 implementations is very hard to configure) the code to
>>>> change groups does not deploy and all IPIs will be raised via IRQ.
>>>>
>>>> It has been tested and shown working on two systems capable of
>>>> supporting grouping (Freescale i.MX6 and STiH416). It has also been
>>>> tested for boot regressions on two systems that do not support grouping
>>>> (vexpress-a9 and Qualcomm Snapdragon 600).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>>>> Cc: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
>>>> Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>>>> Tested-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@...aro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm/kernel/traps.c         |   5 +-
>>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c       | 155 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h |   8 +++
>>>>  3 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>> ...
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>> index 5d72823bc5e9..978e5e48d5c1 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>> ...
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Test which group an interrupt belongs to.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Returns 0 if the controller does not support grouping.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int gic_get_group_irq(void __iomem *base, unsigned int hwirq)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	unsigned int grp_reg = hwirq / 32 * 4;
>>>> +	u32 grp_val;
>>>> +
>>>> +	grp_val = readl_relaxed(base + GIC_DIST_IGROUP + grp_reg);
>>>> +
>>>> +	return (grp_val >> (hwirq % 32)) & 1;
>>>> +}
>>> ...
>>>> @@ -669,7 +802,11 @@ static void gic_raise_softirq(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int irq)
>>>>  	dmb(ishst);
>>>>  
>>>>  	/* this always happens on GIC0 */
>>>> -	writel_relaxed(map << 16 | irq, gic_data_dist_base(&gic_data[0]) + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
>>>> +	softint = map << 16 | irq;
>>>> +	if (gic_get_group_irq(gic_data_dist_base(&gic_data[0]), irq))
>>>> +		softint |= 0x8000;
>>>> +	writel_relaxed(softint,
>>>> +		       gic_data_dist_base(&gic_data[0]) + GIC_DIST_SOFTINT);
>>>>  
>>>>  	bl_migration_unlock();
>>>>  }
>>>
>>> Is it worth the code complication to optimize this if the controller
>>> doesn't support grouping?  Maybe set group_enabled at init so the above
>>> would become:
>>>
>>> 	softint = map << 16 | irq;
>>> 	if (group_enabled &&
>>> 	    gic_get_group_irq(gic_data_dist_base(&gic_data[0]), irq))
>>> 		softint |= 0x8000;
>>> 	writel_relaxed(...);
>>
>> No objections.
>>
>> However given this code always calls gic_get_group_irq() with irq < 16
>> we might be able to do better even than this. The lower 16-bits of
>> IGROUP[0] are constant after boot so if we keep a shadow copy around
>> instead of just a boolean then we can avoid the register read on all
>> code paths.
> 
> Hmm, I'd look at that as a performance enhancement.  I'm more concerned
> about performance regressions for current users of the gic (non-group
> enabled).

"Current users of the gic" doesn't imply "non-group enabled". Whether or
not grouping is enabled is a property of the hardware or (secure)
bootloader.

If we are seriously worried about a performance regression here we
actually have to care about both cases.


> Let's go ahead and do the change (well, a working facsimile) I suggested
> above, and we can do a follow on patch to increase performance for the
> group enabled use case.

Hmnnn...

I've have a new patch ready to go that shadows the IGROUP[0]. Its looks
OK to me and I think it is actually fewer lines of code than v10 because
we can remove gic_get_group_irq() completely.

The code in question ends up looking like:

 	softint = map << 16 | irq;
 	if (gic->igroup0_shadow & BIT(irq))
 		softint |= 0x8000;
 	writel_relaxed(...);

This should end up with the same (data) cache profile as your proposal
in the non-group case and should normally be a win for the grouped case.
I even remembered an informative comment to make clear the use of
shadowing is as an optimization and nothing to do with working around
stupid hardware ;-).

I hope you don't mind but I'm about to share a patchset based on the
above so you can see it in full and decide if you like it. I don't
object to adding an extra boolean (and will do that if you don't like
the above) but I think this code is better.


> If there's no objections, I'd like to try to get this in for v3.19, but
> it's really late.  So we'll see how it goes.

I like that too. I also agree its pretty late and that's one of the
reasons why I'm turning round new patchsets for each bit of feedback.


Daniel.

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists