Re: [PATCH 01/10] irqchip: irq-mips-gic: export gic_send_ipi

From: Qais Yousef
Date: Wed Aug 26 2015 - 10:58:00 EST


On 08/26/2015 02:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015, Qais Yousef wrote:
Can we replace 'something' in interrupt-source and interrupt-sink definitions
to 'host' or 'CPU' or do we really care about creating IPI between any 2
'things'?

Changing the definition will also make interrupt-sink a synonym/alias to
interrupts property. So the description will become

axd: axd {
interrupt-source = <&gic GIC_SHARED 36 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; /*
interrupt from CPU to AXD */
interrupt-sink = <&gic GIC_SHARED 37 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; /*
interrupt from AXD to CPU */
}

But this assume Linux won't take care of the routing. If we want Linux to take
care of the routing, maybe something like this then?

axd: axd {
interrupt-source = <&gic GIC_SHARED 36 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING
HWAFFINITY1>; /* interrupt from CPU to
AXD@HWAFFINITY1*/
interrupt-sink = <&gic GIC_SHARED 37 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING
HWAFFINITY2>; /* interrupt from AXD to CPU@HWAFFINITY2 */
}

I don't think it's necessary to specify the HWAFFINITY2 for interrupt-sink as
linux can use SMP affinity to move it around but we can make it optional in
case there's a need to hardcode it to a specific Linux core. Or maybe the
driver can use affinity hint..
Wrong. You cannot move an IPI around with set_affinity. It's possible
to send an IPI to more than one target CPU, but that has nothing to do
with affinities.

Are you talking about IPIs or about general interrupts which have an
affinity setting?

Maybe my view of the world is limited. I wrote this because the mechanism to route an IPI and set affinities is the same.
So specifying which core or hardware thread should Linux CPU route this IPI to is the same as setting the affinity, no? Linux will not move the IPI that is routed to the coprocessor core. Just the IPI it will receive.

Also the way I see it is that this is an external interrupt whether it was asserted by real signal or through IPI mechanism and it should be treated as such in terms of moving inside Linux SMP, no? Again maybe my view of the world is limited but I can't see why migrating the interrupt would affect correctness unless there's a hardware limitation like only core 0 can read info from AXD (which is where my suggestion to using affinity hint above to accommodate such limitations).

When you say 'It is possible to send an IPI to more than one target CPU', is it a case we need to cater for? The way I was seeing this problem is communication between single Linux SMP and a single coprocessor unit. I didn't think of it as single to many. Even if the coprocessor is a cluster I'd expect it to act as a single unit like Linux SMP. And if it wanted to send 2 different interrupts it will need to use 2 different IPIs.

If I'm stating anything obvious above please bear with me. I'm just trying to be clear about my view of the world in case I'm missing something :-)


Any pointers on the best way to tie gic_send_ipi() with the driver/core code?
The way it's currently tied to the core code is through SMP IPI functions
which I don't think we can use. I'm thinking adding a pointer function in
struct irq_chip would be the easiest approach maybe?
That's the least of our worries. We need to get the high level
interfaces and the devicetree mechanism straight before we talk about
this kind of details.

Fair enough. The reason I asked is to help me start writing some test code but I'll wait.

Thanks,
Qais


Thanks,

tglx

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/