Message-ID: <3c0eb4e9-ee21-d07b-ad16-735b7dc06051@bluespec.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:04:56 -0400
From:   Darius Rad <darius@...espec.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        David Johnson <davidj@...ive.com>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, jason@...edaemon.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: add irq_mask and irq_unmask

On 9/15/19 2:20 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:31:33 +0100,
> Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Palmer,
> 
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:24:20 PDT (-0700), maz@...nel.org wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:40:34 +0100,
>>> Darius Rad <darius@...espec.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Darius,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As per the existing comment, irq_mask and irq_unmask do not need
>>>> to do anything for the PLIC.  However, the functions must exist
>>>> (the pointers cannot be NULL) as they are not optional, based on
>>>> the documentation (Documentation/core-api/genericirq.rst) as well
>>>> as existing usage (e.g., include/linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Darius Rad <darius@...espec.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c | 13 +++++++++----
>>>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>>>> index cf755964f2f8..52d5169f924f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>>>> @@ -111,6 +111,13 @@ static void plic_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
>>>>  	plic_irq_toggle(cpu_possible_mask, d->hwirq, 0);
>>>>  }
>>>>  +/*
>>>> + * There is no need to mask/unmask PLIC interrupts.  They are "masked"
>>>> + * by reading claim and "unmasked" when writing it back.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static void plic_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d) { }
>>>> +static void plic_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d) { }
>>>
>>> This outlines a bigger issue. If your irqchip doesn't require
>>> mask/unmask, you're probably not using the right interrupt
>>> flow. Looking at the code, I see you're using handle_simple_irq, which
>>> is almost universally wrong.
>>>
>>> As per the description above, these interrupts should be using the
>>> fasteoi flow, which is designed for this exact behaviour (the
>>> interrupt controller knows which interrupt is in flight and doesn't
>>> require SW to do anything bar signalling the EOI).
>>>
>>> Another thing is that mask/unmask tends to be a requirement, while
>>> enable/disable tends to be optional. There is no hard line here, but
>>> the expectations are that:
>>>
>>> (a) A disabled line can drop interrupts
>>> (b) A masked line cannot drop interrupts
>>>
>>> Depending what the PLIC architecture mandates, you'll need to
>>> implement one and/or the other. Having just (a) is indicative of a HW
>>> bug, and I'm not assuming that this is the case. (b) only is pretty
>>> common, and (a)+(b) has a few adepts. My bet is that it requires (b)
>>> only.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>>>  static int plic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
>>>>  			     const struct cpumask *mask_val, bool force)
>>>> @@ -138,12 +145,10 @@ static int plic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
>>>>   static struct irq_chip plic_chip = {
>>>>  	.name		= "SiFive PLIC",
>>>> -	/*
>>>> -	 * There is no need to mask/unmask PLIC interrupts.  They are "masked"
>>>> -	 * by reading claim and "unmasked" when writing it back.
>>>> -	 */
>>>>  	.irq_enable	= plic_irq_enable,
>>>>  	.irq_disable	= plic_irq_disable,
>>>> +	.irq_mask	= plic_irq_mask,
>>>> +	.irq_unmask	= plic_irq_unmask,
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>>>  	.irq_set_affinity = plic_set_affinity,
>>>>  #endif
>>>
>>> Can you give the following patch a go? It brings the irq flow in line
>>> with what the HW can do. It is of course fully untested (not even
>>> compile tested...).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> 	M.
>>>
>>> From c0ce33a992ec18f5d3bac7f70de62b1ba2b42090 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
>>> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:17:45 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: Switch to fasteoi flow
>>>
>>> The SiFive PLIC interrupt controller seems to have all the HW
>>> features to support the fasteoi flow, but the driver seems to be
>>> stuck in a distant past. Bring it into the 21st century.
>>
>> Thanks.  We'd gotten these comments during the review process but
>> nobody had gotten the time to actually fix the issues.
> 
> No worries. The IRQ subsystem is an acquired taste... ;-)
> 
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
>>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>>> index cf755964f2f8..8fea384d392b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>>> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static inline void plic_irq_toggle(const struct cpumask *mask,
>>>  	}
>>>  }
>>>  -static void plic_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
>>> +static void plic_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
> 
> Of course, this is wrong. The perks of trying to do something at the
> last minute while boarding an airplane. Don't do that.
> 
> This should of course read "plic_irq_unmask"...
> 
>>>  {
>>>  	unsigned int cpu = cpumask_any_and(irq_data_get_affinity_mask(d),
>>>  					   cpu_online_mask);
>>> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void plic_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
>>>  	plic_irq_toggle(cpumask_of(cpu), d->hwirq, 1);
>>>  }
>>>  -static void plic_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
>>> +static void plic_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
> 
> ... and this should be "plic_irq_mask".
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
>> Tested-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com> (QEMU Boot)
> 
> Huhuh... It may be that QEMU doesn't implement the full-fat PLIC, as
> the above bug should have kept the IRQ lines masked.
> 
>> We should test them on the hardware, but I don't have any with me
>> right now.  David's probably in the best spot to do this, as he's got
>> a setup that does all the weird interrupt sources (ie, PCIe).
>>
>> David: do you mind testing this?  I've put the patch here:
>>
>>    ssh://gitolite.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/palmer/linux.git
>>    -b plic-fasteoi
> 
> I've pushed out a branch with the fixed patch:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git irq/plic-fasteoi
> 

That patch works for me on real-ish hardware.  I tried on two FPGA
systems that have different PLIC implementations.  Both include
a PCIe root port (and associated interrupt source).  So for
whatever it's worth:

Tested-by: Darius Rad <darius@...espec.com>

> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists