linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] clocksource: Add JH7110 timer driver

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:   Fri, 10 Nov 2023 09:40:40 -0800
From:   Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>
To:     Xingyu Wu <xingyu.wu@...rfivetech.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@...onical.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Walker Chen <walker.chen@...rfivetech.com>,
        Samin Guo <samin.guo@...rfivetech.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] clocksource: Add JH7110 timer driver

On 2023-11-08 11:51 PM, Xingyu Wu wrote:
> On 2023/11/8 17:10, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 08/11/2023 04:45, Xingyu Wu wrote:
>>> On 2023/11/2 22:29, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> 
>> [ ... ]
>> 
>>> Thanks. The riscv-timer has a clocksource with a higher rating but a 
>>> clockevent with lower rating[1] than jh7110-timer. I tested the 
>>> jh7110-timer as clockevent and flagged as one shot, which could do some
>>> of the works instead of riscv-timer. And the current_clockevent changed
>>> to jh7110-timer.
>>> 
>>> Because the jh7110-timer works as clocksource with lower rating and only
>>> will be used as global timer at CPU idle time. Is it necessary to be
>>> registered as clocksource? If not, should it just be registered as
>>> clockevent?
>> 
>> Yes, you can register the clockevent without the clocksource.
>> 
>> You mentioned the JH7110 has a better rating than the CPU architected
>> timers. The rating is there to "choose" the best timer, so it is up to the
>> author of the driver check against which timers it compares on the
>> platform.
>> 
>> Usually, CPU timers are the best.
>> 
>> It is surprising the timer-riscv has a so low rating. You may double check
>> if jh7110 is really better. If it is the case, then implementing a
>> clockevent per cpu would make more sense, otherwise one clockevent as a
>> global timer is enough.

The timer-riscv clockevent has a low rating because it requires a call to
firmware to set the timer, as well as a trap to firmware to handle the
interrupt, which both add overhead. Implementations which support the Sstc
extension[1] do not require firmware assistance to implement the clockevent, so
in that case we register the clockevent with a higher rating.

[1]: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-time-compare

>> Unused clocksource, clockevents should be stopped in case the firmware let
>> them in a undetermined state.
> 
> The interrupts of jh7110-timer each channel are global interrupts like
> SPI(Shared Peripheral Interrupt) not PPI (Private Peripheral Interrupt). They
> are up to PLIC to select which core to respond to. So it is hard to implement
> a clockevent per cpu core. I tested this with request_percpu_irq() and it
> failed.

You cannot use request_percpu_irq(), but the driver should be able to set the
affinity of each IRQ to a separate CPU.

Regards,
Samuel

> I think it is enough to implement a clockevent as a global timer. Thank you
> for your advice.
> 
> Best regards, Xingyu Wu