Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 15:32:22 -0700
From:   "Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Cc:     vkoul@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        rafael@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        hpa@...or.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com, jacob.jun.pan@...el.com,
        ashok.raj@...el.com, yi.l.liu@...el.com, baolu.lu@...el.com,
        kevin.tian@...el.com, sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com,
        tony.luck@...el.com, jing.lin@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        kwankhede@...dia.com, eric.auger@...hat.com, parav@...lanox.com,
        dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 07/15] Documentation: Interrupt Message store

Hi Jason,

On 4/23/2020 1:04 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 04:34:30PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/ims-howto.rst b/Documentation/ims-howto.rst
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..a18de152b393
>> +++ b/Documentation/ims-howto.rst
>> @@ -0,0 +1,210 @@
>> +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +.. include:: <isonum.txt>
>> +
>> +==========================
>> +The IMS Driver Guide HOWTO
>> +==========================
>> +
>> +:Authors: Megha Dey
>> +
>> +:Copyright: 2020 Intel Corporation
>> +
>> +About this guide
>> +================
>> +
>> +This guide describes the basics of Interrupt Message Store (IMS), the
>> +need to introduce a new interrupt mechanism, implementation details of
>> +IMS in the kernel, driver changes required to support IMS and the general
>> +misconceptions and FAQs associated with IMS.
> 
> I'm not sure why we need to call this IMS in kernel documentat? I know
> Intel is using this term, but this document is really only talking
> about extending the existing platform_msi stuff, which looks pretty
> good actually.

hmmm, so maybe we call it something else or just say dynamic platform-msi?

> 
> A lot of this is good for the cover letter..

Well, I got a lot of comments internally and externally about how the 
cover page needs to have just the basics and all the ugly details can go 
in the Documentation. So well, I am confused here.
> 
>> +Implementation of IMS in the kernel
>> +===================================
>> +
>> +The Linux kernel today already provides a generic mechanism to support
>> +non-PCI compliant MSI interrupts for platform devices (platform-msi.c).
>> +To support IMS interrupts, we create a new IMS IRQ domain and extend the
>> +existing infrastructure. Dynamic allocation of IMS vectors is a requirement
>> +for devices which support Scalable I/O Virtualization. A driver can allocate
>> +and free vectors not just once during probe (as was the case with MSI/MSI-X)
>> +but also in the post probe phase where actual demand is available. Thus, a
>> +new API, platform_msi_domain_alloc_irqs_group is introduced which drivers
>> +using IMS would be able to call multiple times. The vectors allocated each
>> +time this API is called are associated with a group ID. To free the vectors
>> +associated with a particular group, the platform_msi_domain_free_irqs_group
>> +API can be called. The existing drivers using platform-msi infrastructure
>> +will continue to use the existing alloc (platform_msi_domain_alloc_irqs)
>> +and free (platform_msi_domain_free_irqs) APIs and are assigned a default
>> +group ID of 0.
>> +
>> +Thus, platform-msi.c provides the generic methods which can be used by any
>> +non-pci MSI interrupt type while the newly created ims-msi.c provides IMS
>> +specific callbacks that can be used by drivers capable of generating IMS
>> +interrupts.
> 
> How exactly is an IMS interrupt is different from a platform msi?
> 
> It looks like it is just some thin wrapper around msi_domain - what is
> it for?

So I think conceptually, there is no difference between platform-msi and 
IMS. (Just thinking out loud).

 From a code stand-point, currently
1. Allocation of interrupts is static. I don't think the 
platform-msi-domain_alloc_irqs can be called multiple times.
2. only a write-msg callback is present and they use the parent IRQ 
chip's mask/unmask functions
3. IMS needs interrupt remapping support to be enabled (this is 
independent of the above 2).

If 1 and 2 is all that you are looking for, then we can split the code 
such that we have a generic platform_msi_domain_alloc_irqs_dyn, which 
will be used for the dynamic allocation of IRQs and another 
platform_msi_domain_alloc_irqs_ims (or whatever the name IMS will boil 
down to) which will use interrupt remapping support to get the IRQ 
domain etc.

> 
>> +FAQs and general misconceptions:
>> +================================
>> +
>> +** There were some concerns raised by Thomas Gleixner and Marc Zyngier
>> +during Linux plumbers conference 2019:
>> +
>> +1. Enumeration of IMS needs to be done by PCI core code and not by
>> +   individual device drivers:
>> +
>> +   Currently, if the kernel needs a generic way to discover IMS capability
>> +   without host driver dependency, the PCIE Designated Vendor specific
>> +
>> +   However, we cannot have a standard way of enumerating the IMS size
>> +   because for context based devices, the interrupt message is part of
>> +   the context itself which is managed entirely by the driver. Since
>> +   context creation is done on demand, there is no way to tell during boot
>> +   time, the maximum number of contexts (and hence the number of interrupt
>> +   messages)that the device can support.
> 
> FWIW, I agree with this
> 
> Like platform-msi, IMS should be controlled entirely by the driver.
yup!

> 
>> +2. Why is Intel designing a new interrupt mechanism rather than extending
>> +   MSI-X to address its limitations? Isn't 2048 device interrupts enough?
>> +
>> +   MSI-X has a rigid definition of one-table and on-device storage and does
>> +   not provide the full flexibility required for future multi-tile
>> +   accelerator designs.
>> +   IMS was envisioned to be used with large number of ADIs in devices where
>> +   each will need unique interrupt resources. For example, a DSA shared
>> +   work queue can support large number of clients where each client can
>> +   have its own interrupt. In future, with user interrupts, we expect the
>> +   demand for messages to increase further.
> 
> Generally agree
> 
ok!

>> +Device Driver Changes:
>> +=====================
>> +
>> +1. platform_msi_domain_alloc_irqs_group (struct device *dev, unsigned int
>> +   nvec, const struct platform_msi_ops *platform_ops, int *group_id)
>> +   to allocate IMS interrupts, where:
>> +
>> +   dev: The device for which to allocate interrupts
>> +   nvec: The number of interrupts to allocate
>> +   platform_ops: Callbacks for platform MSI ops (to be provided by driver)
>> +   group_id: returned by the call, to be used to free IRQs of a certain type
>> +
>> +   eg: static struct platform_msi_ops ims_ops  = {
>> +        .irq_mask               = ims_irq_mask,
>> +        .irq_unmask             = ims_irq_unmask,
>> +        .write_msg              = ims_write_msg,
>> +        };
>> +
>> +        int group;
>> +        platform_msi_domain_alloc_irqs_group (dev, nvec, platform_ops, &group)
>> +
>> +   where, struct platform_msi_ops:
>> +   irq_mask:   mask an interrupt source
>> +   irq_unmask: unmask an interrupt source
>> +   irq_write_msi_msg: write message content
>> +
>> +   This API can be called multiple times. Every time a new group will be
>> +   associated with the allocated vectors. Group ID starts from 0.
> 
> Need much more closer look, but this seems conceptually fine to me.
> 
> As above the API here is called platform_msi - which seems good to
> me. Again not sure why the word IMS is needed
>

well, in this case, ims_ops, ims_mask etc are just example names.

> Jason
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists