| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CANXhq0pDYa2QfGZX87d5gyO5V2uzA3-ttPZXf7s1EkMUcG37Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:12:30 +0800
From: Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com>
To: Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-riscv <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachmanov@...ive.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: allow many cores to handle IRQs
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 9:38 PM Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org> wrote:
>
> +Mark Z
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 6:49 PM Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:47 PM Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 4:37 PM Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Currently, driver forces the IRQs to be handled by only one core. This
> > > > patch provides the way to enable others cores to handle IRQs if needed,
> > > > so users could decide how many cores they wanted on default by boot
> > > > argument.
> > > >
> > > > Use 'irqaffinity' boot argument to determine affinity. If there is no
> > > > irqaffinity in dts or kernel configuration, use irq default affinity,
> > > > so all harts would try to claim IRQ.
> > > >
> > > > For example, add irqaffinity=0 in chosen node to set irq affinity to
> > > > hart 0. It also supports more than one harts to handle irq, such as set
> > > > irqaffinity=0,3,4.
> > > >
> > > > You can change IRQ affinity from user-space using procfs. For example,
> > > > you can make CPU0 and CPU2 serve IRQ together by the following command:
> > > >
> > > > echo 4 > /proc/irq/<x>/smp_affinity
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c | 21 +++++++--------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> > > > index d0a71febdadc..bc1440d54185 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> > > > @@ -111,15 +111,12 @@ static inline void plic_irq_toggle(const struct cpumask *mask,
> > > > static void plic_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
> > > > {
> > > > struct cpumask amask;
> > > > - unsigned int cpu;
> > > > struct plic_priv *priv = irq_get_chip_data(d->irq);
> > > >
> > > > cpumask_and(&amask, &priv->lmask, cpu_online_mask);
> > > > - cpu = cpumask_any_and(irq_data_get_affinity_mask(d),
> > > > - &amask);
> > > > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids))
> > > > - return;
> > > > - plic_irq_toggle(cpumask_of(cpu), d, 1);
> > > > + cpumask_and(&amask, &amask, irq_data_get_affinity_mask(d));
> > > > +
> > > > + plic_irq_toggle(&amask, d, 1);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void plic_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
> > > > @@ -133,24 +130,20 @@ static void plic_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
> > > > static int plic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
> > > > const struct cpumask *mask_val, bool force)
> > > > {
> > > > - unsigned int cpu;
> > > > struct cpumask amask;
> > > > struct plic_priv *priv = irq_get_chip_data(d->irq);
> > > >
> > > > cpumask_and(&amask, &priv->lmask, mask_val);
> > > >
> > > > if (force)
> > > > - cpu = cpumask_first(&amask);
> > > > + cpumask_copy(&amask, mask_val);
> > > > else
> > > > - cpu = cpumask_any_and(&amask, cpu_online_mask);
> > > > -
> > > > - if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> > > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > > + cpumask_and(&amask, &amask, cpu_online_mask);
> > > >
> > > > plic_irq_toggle(&priv->lmask, d, 0);
> > > > - plic_irq_toggle(cpumask_of(cpu), d, 1);
> > > > + plic_irq_toggle(&amask, d, 1);
> > > >
> > > > - irq_data_update_effective_affinity(d, cpumask_of(cpu));
> > > > + irq_data_update_effective_affinity(d, &amask);
> > > >
> > > > return IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE;
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.26.1
> > > >
> > >
> > > I strongly oppose (NACK) this patch due to performance reasons.
> > >
> > > In PLIC, if we enable an IRQ X for N CPUs then when IRQ X occurs:
> > > 1) All N CPUs will take interrupt
> > > 2) All N CPUs will try to read PLIC CLAIM register
> > > 3) Only one of the CPUs will see IRQ X using the CLAIM register
> > > but other N - 1 CPUs will see no interrupt and return back to what
> > > they were doing. In other words, N - 1 CPUs will just waste CPU
> > > every time IRQ X occurs.
> > >
> > > Example1, one Application doing heavy network traffic will
> > > degrade performance of other applications because with every
> > > network RX/TX interrupt N-1 CPUs will waste CPU trying to
> > > process network interrupt.
> > >
> > > Example1, one Application doing heavy MMC/SD traffic will
> > > degrade performance of other applications because with every
> > > SPI read/write interrupt N-1 CPUs will waste CPU trying to
> > > process it.
> > >
> > > In fact, the current PLIC approach is actually a performance
> > > optimization. This implementation also works fine with in-kernel
> > > load-balancer and user space load balancer.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it's exactly, I know what you pointed out. But the idea of this
> > patch is just providing a way that users could enable other cores if
> > they wanted, it could still enable only one core by this change. The
> > purpose here is thinking of flexible use, rather than limitation.
> > Maybe it would be a happy medium that we make the default case enable
> > only one core? It is a good open discussion.
>
> Making the default case as enable only one core is just a work-around.
>
> As-per my understanding, if we set affinity mask of N CPUs for IRQ X
> then it does not mean all N CPUs should receive IRQ X rather it means
> that exactly one of the N CPUs will receive IRQ X and the IRQ receiving
> CPU will be fixed (reflected by effective affinity returned by the driver).
is there a case that we only bundle the IRQ to CPU0, but CPU0 is more
much busy than other CPUs, and it would be better if another CPU could
take the IRQ?
>
> If we ignore above semantics and still provide a mechanism to target
> IRQ X to N CPUs then most likely someone will try and run into
> performance issues.
>
> Please don't go this path. The performance impact in case of Guest/VM
> is even worst because PLIC is trap-n-emulated by hypervisors as MMIO
> device.
OK, I won't persist in that, just wanna figure out the situation.
>
> Regards,
> Anup
Powered by blists - more mailing lists