| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAK9=C2V+81u6L78to8CCLZtU30oHCjrCZY8juODXc1hSP9H5BA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 15:48:26 +0530
From: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/7] genirq: Add mechanism to multiplex a single HW IPI
Hi Marc,
Apologies for being slow, I got preempted by other tasks.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 11:59 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 17:13:05 +0100,
> Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
> >
> > All RISC-V platforms have a single HW IPI provided by the INTC local
> > interrupt controller. The HW method to trigger INTC IPI can be through
> > external irqchip (e.g. RISC-V AIA), through platform specific device
> > (e.g. SiFive CLINT timer), or through firmware (e.g. SBI IPI call).
> >
> > To support multiple IPIs on RISC-V, we add a generic IPI multiplexing
> > mechanism which help us create multiple virtual IPIs using a single
> > HW IPI. This generic IPI multiplexing is shared among various RISC-V
> > irqchip drivers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/irq.h | 18 ++++
> > kernel/irq/Kconfig | 5 +
> > kernel/irq/Makefile | 1 +
> > kernel/irq/ipi-mux.c | 244 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 4 files changed, 268 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 kernel/irq/ipi-mux.c
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/irq.h b/include/linux/irq.h
> > index c3eb89606c2b..5ab702cb0a5b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/irq.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/irq.h
> > @@ -1266,6 +1266,24 @@ int __ipi_send_mask(struct irq_desc *desc, const struct cpumask *dest);
> > int ipi_send_single(unsigned int virq, unsigned int cpu);
> > int ipi_send_mask(unsigned int virq, const struct cpumask *dest);
> >
> > +/**
> > + * struct ipi_mux_ops - IPI multiplex operations
> > + *
> > + * @ipi_mux_pre_handle: Optional function called before handling parent IPI
> > + * @ipi_mux_post_handle:Optional function called after handling parent IPI
> > + * @ipi_mux_send: Trigger parent IPI on target CPUs
> > + */
> > +struct ipi_mux_ops {
> > + void (*ipi_mux_pre_handle)(unsigned int parent_virq, void *data);
> > + void (*ipi_mux_post_handle)(unsigned int parent_virq, void *data);
> > + void (*ipi_mux_send)(unsigned int parent_virq, void *data,
> > + const struct cpumask *mask);
> > +};
>
> What is the rational for these pre/post handling functions? We don't
> have them for normal interrupts, why are they required for IPIs?
Yes, normal interrupts don't require these functions but there is
diversity among irqchip drivers for IPI muxing.
For example: the Apple AIC driver has device specific MMIO access
before and after handling IPIs whereas the RISC-V SBI IPI driver needs
to clear the sip.SSIP bit before handling the IPIs.
>
> > +
> > +void ipi_mux_process(void);
> > +int ipi_mux_create(unsigned int parent_virq, unsigned int nr_ipi,
> > + const struct ipi_mux_ops *ops, void *data);
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_MULTI_HANDLER
> > /*
> > * Registers a generic IRQ handling function as the top-level IRQ handler in
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/Kconfig b/kernel/irq/Kconfig
> > index db3d174c53d4..df17dbc54b02 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq/Kconfig
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/Kconfig
> > @@ -86,6 +86,11 @@ config GENERIC_IRQ_IPI
> > depends on SMP
> > select IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
> >
> > +# Generic IRQ IPI Mux support
> > +config GENERIC_IRQ_IPI_MUX
> > + bool
> > + depends on SMP
> > +
> > # Generic MSI interrupt support
> > config GENERIC_MSI_IRQ
> > bool
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/Makefile b/kernel/irq/Makefile
> > index b4f53717d143..f19d3080bf11 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq/Makefile
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/Makefile
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_MIGRATION) += cpuhotplug.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) += pm.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_MSI_IRQ) += msi.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_IPI) += ipi.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_IPI_MUX) += ipi-mux.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += affinity.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_DEBUGFS) += debugfs.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_MATRIX_ALLOCATOR) += matrix.o
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/ipi-mux.c b/kernel/irq/ipi-mux.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..8939fa2be73c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/ipi-mux.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> > +/*
> > + * Multiplex several virtual IPIs over a single HW IPI.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (c) 2022 Ventana Micro Systems Inc.
>
> Basic courtesy would be to at least mention where this was lifted
> from, as well as the original copyrights. Also, the original code
> states "GPL-2.0-or-later". Since this is a derivative work, the same
> licence should apply, shouldn't it?
Sure, I will update it.
>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "ipi-mux: " fmt
> > +#include <linux/cpu.h>
> > +#include <linux/init.h>
> > +#include <linux/irq.h>
> > +#include <linux/irqchip.h>
> > +#include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
> > +#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> > +#include <linux/smp.h>
> > +
> > +static void *ipi_mux_data;
> > +static unsigned int ipi_mux_nr;
> > +static unsigned int ipi_mux_parent_virq;
> > +static struct irq_domain *ipi_mux_domain;
> > +static const struct ipi_mux_ops *ipi_mux_ops;
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t, ipi_mux_enable);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(atomic_t, ipi_mux_bits);
>
> How about making these fields part of a structure, and only allocate
> them on creation of an IPI irqdomain? Most platforms do not require
> this at all.
Okay, I will update like you suggested.
>
> > +
> > +static void ipi_mux_mask(struct irq_data *d)
> > +{
> > + atomic_andnot(BIT(irqd_to_hwirq(d)), this_cpu_ptr(&ipi_mux_enable));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ipi_mux_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
> > +{
> > + u32 ipi_bit = BIT(irqd_to_hwirq(d));
> > +
> > + atomic_or(ipi_bit, this_cpu_ptr(&ipi_mux_enable));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The atomic_or() above must complete before the atomic_read()
> > + * below to avoid racing ipi_mux_send_mask().
> > + */
> > + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > +
> > + /* If a pending IPI was unmasked, raise a parent IPI immediately. */
> > + if (atomic_read(this_cpu_ptr(&ipi_mux_bits)) & ipi_bit)
> > + ipi_mux_ops->ipi_mux_send(ipi_mux_parent_virq, ipi_mux_data,
> > + cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ipi_mux_send_mask(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask)
> > +{
> > + u32 ipi_bit = BIT(irqd_to_hwirq(d));
> > + struct cpumask pmask = { 0 };
>
> Urgh, no (see the comment in cpumask.h). struct cpumask can be really
> huge (it uses NR_CPUS), and we only want to depend on nr_cpus. Use a
> per-CPU temp if you must, but don't allocate something like this on
> the stack.
Okay, I will create per-CPU temp like you suggested.
>
> > + unsigned long pending;
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu(cpu, mask) {
> > + pending = atomic_fetch_or_release(ipi_bit,
> > + per_cpu_ptr(&ipi_mux_bits, cpu));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The atomic_fetch_or_release() above must complete before
> > + * the atomic_read() below to avoid racing ipi_mux_unmask().
> > + */
> > + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > +
> > + if (!(pending & ipi_bit) &&
> > + (atomic_read(per_cpu_ptr(&ipi_mux_enable, cpu)) & ipi_bit))
> > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &pmask);
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Trigger the parent IPI */
> > + ipi_mux_ops->ipi_mux_send(ipi_mux_parent_virq, ipi_mux_data, &pmask);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct irq_chip ipi_mux_chip = {
> > + .name = "IPI Mux",
> > + .irq_mask = ipi_mux_mask,
> > + .irq_unmask = ipi_mux_unmask,
> > + .ipi_send_mask = ipi_mux_send_mask,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int ipi_mux_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int virq,
> > + unsigned int nr_irqs, void *arg)
> > +{
> > + struct irq_fwspec *fwspec = arg;
> > + irq_hw_number_t hwirq;
> > + unsigned int type;
> > + int i, ret;
> > +
> > + ret = irq_domain_translate_onecell(d, fwspec, &hwirq, &type);
>
> Where is the format of this fwspec documented?
We don't need this fwspec. I will remove it in next patch revision.
>
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
> > + irq_set_percpu_devid(virq + i);
> > + irq_domain_set_info(d, virq + i, hwirq + i,
> > + &ipi_mux_chip, d->host_data,
> > + handle_percpu_devid_irq, NULL, NULL);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct irq_domain_ops ipi_mux_domain_ops = {
> > + .alloc = ipi_mux_domain_alloc,
> > + .free = irq_domain_free_irqs_top,
> > +};
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * ipi_mux_process - Process multiplexed virtual IPIs
> > + */
> > +void ipi_mux_process(void)
> > +{
> > + irq_hw_number_t hwirq;
> > + unsigned long ipis;
> > + int en, err;
> > +
> > + if (ipi_mux_ops->ipi_mux_pre_handle)
>
> Given that this shouldn't change in the lifetime of the system, this
> needs to be turned into a static key in order to avoid the overhead of
> accessing this on each and every IPI.
Sure, I will use static keys here.
>
> > + ipi_mux_ops->ipi_mux_pre_handle(ipi_mux_parent_virq,
> > + ipi_mux_data);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Reading enable mask does not need to be ordered as long as
> > + * this function called from interrupt handler because only
> > + * the CPU itself can change it's own enable mask.
> > + */
> > + en = atomic_read(this_cpu_ptr(&ipi_mux_enable));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Clear the IPIs we are about to handle. This pairs with the
> > + * atomic_fetch_or_release() in ipi_mux_send_mask().
> > + */
> > + ipis = atomic_fetch_andnot(en, this_cpu_ptr(&ipi_mux_bits)) & en;
> > +
> > + for_each_set_bit(hwirq, &ipis, ipi_mux_nr) {
> > + err = generic_handle_domain_irq(ipi_mux_domain,
> > + hwirq);
> > + if (unlikely(err))
> > + pr_warn_ratelimited(
> > + "can't find mapping for hwirq %lu\n",
> > + hwirq);
>
> How can this happen?
This is a paranoid check on my side. I will remove it.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (ipi_mux_ops->ipi_mux_post_handle)
>
> Same thing as above.
Okay, I will update.
>
> > + ipi_mux_ops->ipi_mux_post_handle(ipi_mux_parent_virq,
> > + ipi_mux_data);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ipi_mux_handler(struct irq_desc *desc)
> > +{
> > + struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
> > +
> > + chained_irq_enter(chip, desc);
> > + ipi_mux_process();
> > + chained_irq_exit(chip, desc);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ipi_mux_dying_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > + disable_percpu_irq(ipi_mux_parent_virq);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ipi_mux_starting_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > + enable_percpu_irq(ipi_mux_parent_virq,
> > + irq_get_trigger_type(ipi_mux_parent_virq));
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * ipi_mux_create - Create virtual IPIs multiplexed on top of a single
> > + * parent IPI.
> > + * @parent_virq: virq of the parent per-CPU IRQ
> > + * @nr_ipi: number of virtual IPIs to create. This should
> > + * be <= BITS_PER_TYPE(int)
>
> In general, please use 'long' rather than 'int', like for most other
> things in the kernel.
This is BITS_PER_TYPE(int) because we are using 32bit atomic
operations.
>
> > + * @ops: multiplexing operations for the parent IPI
> > + * @data: opaque data used by the multiplexing operations
> > + *
> > + * If the parent IPI > 0 then ipi_mux_process() will be automatically
> > + * called via chained handler.
> > + *
> > + * If the parent IPI <= 0 then it is responsibility of irqchip drivers
> > + * to explicitly call ipi_mux_process() for processing muxed IPIs.
> > + *
> > + * Returns first virq of the newly created virtual IPIs upon success
> > + * or <=0 upon failure
> > + */
> > +int ipi_mux_create(unsigned int parent_virq, unsigned int nr_ipi,
> > + const struct ipi_mux_ops *ops, void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode;
> > + struct irq_domain *domain;
> > + struct irq_fwspec ipi;
> > + int virq;
> > +
> > + if (ipi_mux_domain || BITS_PER_TYPE(int) < nr_ipi ||
> > + !ops || !ops->ipi_mux_send)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (parent_virq &&
> > + !irqd_is_per_cpu(irq_desc_get_irq_data(irq_to_desc(parent_virq))))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + fwnode = irq_domain_alloc_named_fwnode("IPI-Mux");
> > + if (!fwnode) {
> > + pr_err("unable to create IPI Mux fwnode\n");
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > + domain = irq_domain_create_simple(fwnode, nr_ipi, 0,
> > + &ipi_mux_domain_ops, NULL);
> > + if (!domain) {
> > + pr_err("unable to add IPI Mux domain\n");
> > + irq_domain_free_fwnode(fwnode);
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ipi.fwnode = domain->fwnode;
> > + ipi.param_count = 1;
> > + ipi.param[0] = 0;
>
> This really deserves some documentation if this is to be used at scale
> (and not be a riscv-special).
This fwspec is not needed. I will be removing it in the next patch revision.
>
> > + virq = __irq_domain_alloc_irqs(domain, -1, nr_ipi,
> > + NUMA_NO_NODE, &ipi, false, NULL);
> > + if (virq <= 0) {
> > + pr_err("unable to alloc IRQs from IPI Mux domain\n");
> > + irq_domain_remove(domain);
> > + irq_domain_free_fwnode(fwnode);
> > + return virq;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ipi_mux_domain = domain;
> > + ipi_mux_data = data;
> > + ipi_mux_nr = nr_ipi;
> > + ipi_mux_parent_virq = parent_virq;
> > + ipi_mux_ops = ops;
> > +
> > + if (parent_virq > 0) {
> > + irq_set_chained_handler(parent_virq, ipi_mux_handler);
> > + cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN,
> > + "irqchip/ipi-mux:starting",
> > + ipi_mux_starting_cpu, ipi_mux_dying_cpu);
> > + }
>
> This whole CPUHP thing feels like something that should stay outside
> of the generic code. I'm pretty sure some architectures would have
> specific requirements and wouldn't be able to just use any odd dynamic
> value...
I agree. I will update irqchip drivers to do the parent_virq enable/disable
and remove it from here.
>
> > +
> > + return virq;
> > +}
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Thanks,
Anup
Powered by blists - more mailing lists