linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 02/18] irq/dev-msi: Add support for a new DEV

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]
Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 10:58:45 -0700
From:   "Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
CC:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, "Lu, Baolu" <baolu.lu@...el.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        "Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Lin, Jing" <jing.lin@...el.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>,
        "eric.auger@...hat.com" <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        "parav@...lanox.com" <parav@...lanox.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "netanelg@...lanox.com" <netanelg@...lanox.com>,
        "shahafs@...lanox.com" <shahafs@...lanox.com>,
        "yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com" <yan.y.zhao@...ux.intel.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Ortiz, Samuel" <samuel.ortiz@...el.com>,
        "Hossain, Mona" <mona.hossain@...el.com>,
        "dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 02/18] irq/dev-msi: Add support for a new DEV_MSI
 irq domain

Hi Thomas,

On 8/6/2020 10:10 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Megha,
>
> "Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com> writes:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
> <SNIP>
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 02/18] irq/dev-msi: Add support for a new DEV_MSI
>>> irq domain
> can you please fix your mail client not to copy the whole header of the
> mail you are replying to into the mail body?

oops, i hope i have fixed it now..

>
>>>>> Well, I had suggested to pass in the parent struct device, but it
>>> Oops, I was thinking of platform_msi_domain_alloc_irqs() not
>>> create_device_domain()
>>>
>>> ie call it in the device driver that wishes to consume the extra MSIs.
>>>
>>> Is there a harm if each device driver creates a new irq_domain for its use?
>> Well, the only harm is if we want to reuse the irq domain.
> You cannot reuse the irq domain if you create a domain per driver. The
> way how hierarchical domains work is:
>
> vector --- DMAR-MSI
>         |
>         |-- ....
>         |
>         |-- IR-0 --- IO/APIC-0
>         |        |
>         |        |-- IO/APIC-1
>         |        |
>         |        |-- PCI/MSI-0
>         |        |
>         |        |-- HPET/MSI-0
>         |
>         |-- IR-1 --- PCI/MSI-1
>         |        |
>
> The outermost domain is what the actual device driver uses. I.e. for
> PCI-MSI it's the msi domain which is associated to the bus the device is
> connected to. Each domain has its own interrupt chip instance and its
> own data set.
>
> Domains of the same type share the code, but neither the data nor the
> interrupt chip instance.
>
> Also there is a strict parent child relationship in terms of resources.
> Let's look at PCI.
>
> PCI/MSI-0 depends on IR-0 which depends on the vector domain. That's
> reflecting both the flow of the interrupt and the steps required for
> various tasks, e.g. allocation/deallocation and also interrupt chip
> operations. In order to allocate a PCI/MSI interrupt in domain PCI/MSI-0
> a slot in the remapping unit and a vector needs to be allocated.
>
> If you disable interrupt remapping all the outermost domains in the
> scheme above become childs of the vector domain.
>
> So if we look at DEV/MSI as a infrastructure domain then the scheme
> looks like this:
>
> vector --- DMAR-MSI
>         |
>         |-- ....
>         |
>         |-- IR-0 --- IO/APIC-0
>         |        |
>         |        |-- IO/APIC-1
>         |        |
>         |        |-- PCI/MSI-0
>         |        |
>         |        |-- HPET/MSI-0
>         |        |
>         |        |-- DEV/MSI-0
>         |
>         |-- IR-1 --- PCI/MSI-1
>         |        |
>         |        |-- DEV/MSI-1
>
>
> But if you make it per device then you have multiple DEV/MSI domains per
> IR unit.
>
> What's the right thing to do?
>
> If the DEV/MSI domain has it's own per IR unit resource management, then
> you need one per IR unit.
>
> If the resource management is solely per device then having a domain per
> device is the right choice.

Thanks a lot Thomas for this detailed explanation!!

The dev-msi domain can be used by other devices if they too would want 
to follow the
vector->intel IR->dev-msi IRQ hierarchy.
I do create one dev-msi IRQ domain instance per IR unit. So I guess for 
this case,
it makes most sense to have a dev-msi IRQ domain per IR unit as opposed 
to create one
per individual driver..
>
> Thanks,
>
>          tglx