Message-ID: <Y1MJigL3JXwjgQbs@iweiny-desk3>
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 14:05:14 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
CC:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        <alison.schofield@...el.com>, <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
        <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, <a.manzanares@...sung.com>,
        <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cxl/pci: Add generic MSI-X/MSI irq support

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 09:20:55AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 21:18:58 -0700
> > Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:31:25PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Oct 2022, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Reality is that it is cleaner to more or less ignore the infrastructure
> > > > > proposed in this patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Query how many CPMU devices there are. Whilst there stash the maximim
> > > > >   cpmu vector number in the cxlds.
> > > > > 2. Run a stub in this infrastructure that does max(irq, cxlds->irq_num);
> > > > > 3. Carry on as before.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus destroying the point of this infrastructure for that usecase at least
> > > > > and leaving an extra bit of state in the cxl_dev_state that is just
> > > > > to squirt a value into the callback...
> > > >
> > > > If it doesn't fit, then it doesn't fit.
> > > >
> > > > However, while I was expecting pass one to be in the callback, I wasn't
> > > > expecting that both pass 1 and 2 shared the cpmu_regs_array. If the array
> > > > could be reconstructed during pass 2, then it would fit a bit better;
> > > > albeit the extra allocation, cycles etc., but this is probing phase, so
> > > > overhead isn't that important (and cpmu_count isn't big enough to matter).
> > 
> > I thought about that approach, but it's really ugly to have to do
> > 
> > 1) For the IRQ number gathering.
> >  a) Parse 1 to count CPMUs
> >  b) Parse 2 to get the register maps - grab the irq numbers and unmap them again
> > 2) For the CPMU registration
> >  a) Parse 3 to count CPMUs (we could stash the number of CPMUS form 1a) but
> >     that's no advantage over stashing the max irq in current proposal.
> >     Both are putting state where it's not relevant or wanted just to make it
> >     available in a callback.  This way is even worse because it's getting
> >     stashed as a side effect of a parse in a function doing something different.
> >  b) Parse 4 to get the register maps and actually create the devices. Could have
> >     stashed this earlier as well, but same 'side effects' argument applies.
> > 
> > Sure, can move to this however with appropriate comments on why we are playing
> > these games because otherwise I suspect a future 'cleanup' would remove double, double
> > pass.
> > 
> > To allow for an irq registration wrapper that turns a series of straight
> > line calls into callbacks in an array.  The straight line calls aren't exactly
> > complex in the first place.
> > //find cpmu filling in cxl_cpmu_reg_maps.
> > 
> > max_irq = -1
> > rc = cxl_mailbox_get_irq()
> > if (rc < 0)
> > 	return rc;
> > max_irq = max(max_irq, rc);
> > 
> > rc = cxl_events_get_irq()
> > if (rc < 0)
> > 	return rc;
> > max_irq = max(max_irq, rc);
> > 
> > rc = cxl_cpmus_get_irq(cxl_cpmu_reg_maps);
> > if (rc < 0)
> > 	return rc;
> > max_irq = max(max_irq, rC);
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > if (irq > 0) {
> > 
> > 	pci_get...
> > }
> > 
> > //create all the devices...
> 
> Yes, this was sort of what I pictured if we go this way. It doesn't make
> my eyes sore.

Ok

> 
> > 
> > > >
> > > > But if we're going to go with a free-for-all approach, can we establish
> > > > who goes for the initial pci_alloc_irq_vectors()? I think perhaps mbox
> > > > since it's the most straightforward and with least requirements, I'm
> > > > also unsure of the status yet to merge events and pmu, but regardless
> > > > they are still larger patchsets. If folks agree I can send a new mbox-only
> > > > patch.
> > > 
> > > I think there needs to be some mechanism for all of the sub-device-functions to
> > > report their max required vectors.
> > > 
> > > I don't think that the mbox code is necessarily the code which should need to
> > > know about all those other sub-device-thingys.  But it could certainly take
> > > some 'max vectors' value that probe passed to it.
> > > 
> > > I'm still not sure how dropping this infrastructure makes Jonathan's code
> > > cleaner.  I still think there will need to be 2 passes over the number of
> > > CPMU's.
> > > 
> > 
> > Primarily that there is no need to stash anything about the CPMUs in the
> > cxl_device_state (option 1) or repeat all the counting and discovery logic twice
> > (option 2).

I see what you are driving at now.  But I don't think having irq information in
cxlds is a layering violation.

> > 
> > I can live with it (it's what we have to do in pcie port for the equivalent)
> > but the wrapped up version feels like a false optimization.
> > 
> > Saves a few lines of code and adds a bunch of complexity elsewhere that looks to
> > me to outweigh that saving.
> 
> Yeah it's hard to justify the extra complexity here when the alternative isn't
> even that bad.

Lets just do this.  I don't think it matters much either and I need something
to land before the event stuff.

Ira

> 
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr

Powered by blists - more mailing lists