Message-ID: <20211202200017.GS4670@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Dec 2021 16:00:17 -0400
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        Marc Zygnier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        Megha Dey <megha.dey@...el.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Allen Hubbe <allenbh@...il.com>, linux-ntb@...glegroups.com,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 21/32] NTB/msi: Convert to msi_on_each_desc()

On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 08:25:48PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Jason,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 02 2021 at 09:55, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:01:42AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 01 2021 at 21:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Dec 01 2021 at 14:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> > Which in turn is consistent all over the place and does not require any
> >> > special case for anything. Neither for interrupts nor for anything else.
> >> 
> >> that said, feel free to tell me that I'm getting it all wrong.
> >> 
> >> The reason I'm harping on this is that we are creating ABIs on several
> >> ends and we all know that getting that wrong is a major pain.
> >
> > I don't really like coupling the method to fetch IRQs with needing
> > special struct devices. Struct devices have a sysfs presence and it is
> > not always appropriate to create sysfs stuff just to allocate some
> > IRQs.
> >
> > A queue is simply not a device, it doesn't make any sense. A queue is
> > more like a socket().
> 
> Let's put the term 'device' for a bit please. 
> 
> > That said, we often have enough struct devices floating about to make
> > this work. Between netdev/ib_device/aux device/mdev we can use them to
> > do this.
> >
> > I think it is conceptual nonsense to attach an IMS IRQ domain to a
> > netdev or a cdev, but it will solve this problem.
> 
> The IMS irqdomain is _NOT_ part of the netdev or cdev or whatever. I
> explained that several times now.
> 
> We seem to have a serious problem of terminology and the understanding
> of topology which is why we continue to talk past each other forever.

I think I understand and agree with everything you said below.

The point we diverge is where to put the vector storage:
 
> Of course we can store them in pci_dev.dev.msi.data.store. Either with a
> dedicated xarray or by partitioning the xarray space. Both have their
> pro and cons.

This decision seems to drive the question of how many 'struct devices'
do we need, and where do we get them..

> But what I really struggle with is how this is further represented when
> the queues are allocated for VFIO, cdev, whatever usage.

Yes, this seems to be the primary question

> The fact that the irqdomain is instantiated by the device driver does
> not make it any different. As explained above it's just an
> implementation detail which makes it possible to handle the device
> specific message storage requirement in a sane way. The actual interrupt
> resources come still from the underlying irqdomains as for PCI/MSI.

Yes! This is not under debate

> Now I was looking for a generic representation of such a container and
> my initial reaction was to bind it to a struct device, which also makes
> it trivial to store these MSI descriptors in that struct device.

Right, I've been trying to argue around just this choice.
 
> I can understand your resistance against that to some extent, but I
> think we really have to come up with a proper abstract representation
> for these.

Ok

> Such a logical function would be the entity to hand out for VFIO or
> cdev.

What is a logical function, concretely? 

Does it have struct device?

Can I instead suggest a name like 'message interrupt table' ?

Ie a device has two linearly indexed message interrupt tables - the
PCI SIG defined MSI/MSI-X one created by the PCI core and the IMS one
created by the driver.

Both start at 0 index and they have different irq_domains.

Instead of asking the driver to create a domain we ask the driver to
create a new 'message interrupt table'. The driver provides the
irq_chip to program the messages and the pci_device. The core code
manages the irq domain setup.

Using what you say below:

> If this is not split out, then every driver and wrapper has to come up
> with it's own representation of this instead of being able to do:
> 
>      request_irq(msi_get_virq(lfunc, idx=0), handler0, ...);
>      request_irq(msi_get_virq(lfunc, idx=1), handler1, ...);

We could say:
  msi_get_virq(device.pci_msi_table, index=0)

Is the 0th PCI SIG MSI vector

Something like:

 ims_table = pci_create_msi_table(pci_dev, my_irq_chip,..)
 msi_get_virq(ims_table, index=0)

Is the 0th IMS vector

Is it close to what you are thinking with lfunc?

Regards,
Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists