[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5f4947b18bf381615a37aa81c2242477@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 19:12:57 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@...aptics.com>,
Kunihiko Hayashi <hayashi.kunihiko@...ionext.com>,
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Binghui Wang <wangbinghui@...ilicon.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...s.com, Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Pratyush Anand <pratyush.anand@...il.com>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Xiaowei Song <songxiaowei@...ilicon.com>,
Richard Zhu <hongxing.zhu@....com>,
Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Yue Wang <yue.wang@...ogic.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stanimir Varbanov <svarbanov@...sol.com>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] PCI: dwc: improve msi handling
On 2020-09-29 19:02, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 29/09/2020 18:25, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 2020-09-29 14:22, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> Hi Jisheng,
>>>
>>> On 29/09/2020 11:48, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>>> Hi Jon,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:53:45 +0100 Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24/09/2020 12:05, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> Improve the msi code:
>>>>>> 1. Add proper error handling.
>>>>>> 2. Move dw_pcie_msi_init() from each users to designware host to
>>>>>> solve
>>>>>> msi page leakage in resume path.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies if this is slightly off topic, but I have been meaning to
>>>>> ask
>>>>> about MSIs and PCI. On Tegra194 which uses the DWC PCI driver,
>>>>> whenever we
>>>>> hotplug CPUs we see the following warnings ...
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 79.068351] WARNING KERN IRQ70: set affinity failed(-22).
>>>>> [ 79.068362] WARNING KERN IRQ71: set affinity failed(-22).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I tried to reproduce this issue on Synaptics SoC, but can't
>>>> reproduce
>>>> it.
>>>> Per my understanding of the code in kernel/irq/cpuhotplug.c, this
>>>> warning
>>>> happened when we migrate irqs away from the offline cpu, this
>>>> implicitly
>>>> implies that before this point the irq has bind to the offline cpu,
>>>> but how
>>>> could this happen given current dw_pci_msi_set_affinity()
>>>> implementation
>>>> always return -EINVAL
>>>
>>> By default the smp_affinity should be set so that all CPUs can be
>>> interrupted ...
>>>
>>> $ cat /proc/irq/70/smp_affinity
>>> 0xff
>>>
>>> In my case there are 8 CPUs and so 0xff implies that the interrupt
>>> can
>>> be triggered on any of the 8 CPUs.
>>>
>>> Do you see the set_affinity callback being called for the DWC irqchip
>>> in
>>> migrate_one_irq()?
>>
>> The problem is common to all MSI implementations that end up muxing
>> all the end-point MSIs into a single interrupt. With these systems,
>> you cannot set the affinity of individual MSIs (they don't target a
>> CPU, they target another interrupt... braindead). Only the mux
>> interrupt can have its affinity changed.
>>
>> So returning -EINVAL is the right thing to do.
>
> Right, so if that is the case, then surely there should be some way to
> avoid these warnings because they are not relevant?
I don't think there is a way to do this, because the core code
doesn't (and cannot) know the exact interrupt topology.
The only alternative would be to change the affinity of the mux
interrupt when a MSI affinity changes, but that tends to break
userspace (irqbalance, for example).
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists