Re: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: add irq_mask and irq_unmask
From: Palmer Dabbelt
Date: Sun Sep 15 2019 - 19:47:16 EST
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 11:20:40 PDT (-0700), maz@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:31:33 +0100,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Palmer,
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 07:24:20 PDT (-0700), maz@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:40:34 +0100,
> Darius Rad <darius@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Darius,
>
>>
>> As per the existing comment, irq_mask and irq_unmask do not need
>> to do anything for the PLIC. However, the functions must exist
>> (the pointers cannot be NULL) as they are not optional, based on
>> the documentation (Documentation/core-api/genericirq.rst) as well
>> as existing usage (e.g., include/linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Darius Rad <darius@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c | 13 +++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>> index cf755964f2f8..52d5169f924f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
>> @@ -111,6 +111,13 @@ static void plic_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
>> plic_irq_toggle(cpu_possible_mask, d->hwirq, 0);
>> }
>> +/*
>> + * There is no need to mask/unmask PLIC interrupts. They are "masked"
>> + * by reading claim and "unmasked" when writing it back.
>> + */
>> +static void plic_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d) { }
>> +static void plic_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d) { }
>
> This outlines a bigger issue. If your irqchip doesn't require
> mask/unmask, you're probably not using the right interrupt
> flow. Looking at the code, I see you're using handle_simple_irq, which
> is almost universally wrong.
>
> As per the description above, these interrupts should be using the
> fasteoi flow, which is designed for this exact behaviour (the
> interrupt controller knows which interrupt is in flight and doesn't
> require SW to do anything bar signalling the EOI).
>
> Another thing is that mask/unmask tends to be a requirement, while
> enable/disable tends to be optional. There is no hard line here, but
> the expectations are that:
>
> (a) A disabled line can drop interrupts
> (b) A masked line cannot drop interrupts
>
> Depending what the PLIC architecture mandates, you'll need to
> implement one and/or the other. Having just (a) is indicative of a HW
> bug, and I'm not assuming that this is the case. (b) only is pretty
> common, and (a)+(b) has a few adepts. My bet is that it requires (b)
> only.
>
>> +
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> static int plic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
>> const struct cpumask *mask_val, bool force)
>> @@ -138,12 +145,10 @@ static int plic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
>> static struct irq_chip plic_chip = {
>> .name = "SiFive PLIC",
>> - /*
>> - * There is no need to mask/unmask PLIC interrupts. They are "masked"
>> - * by reading claim and "unmasked" when writing it back.
>> - */
>> .irq_enable = plic_irq_enable,
>> .irq_disable = plic_irq_disable,
>> + .irq_mask = plic_irq_mask,
>> + .irq_unmask = plic_irq_unmask,
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> .irq_set_affinity = plic_set_affinity,
>> #endif
>
> Can you give the following patch a go? It brings the irq flow in line
> with what the HW can do. It is of course fully untested (not even
> compile tested...).
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> From c0ce33a992ec18f5d3bac7f70de62b1ba2b42090 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:17:45 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: Switch to fasteoi flow
>
> The SiFive PLIC interrupt controller seems to have all the HW
> features to support the fasteoi flow, but the driver seems to be
> stuck in a distant past. Bring it into the 21st century.
Thanks. We'd gotten these comments during the review process but
nobody had gotten the time to actually fix the issues.
No worries. The IRQ subsystem is an acquired taste... ;-)
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> index cf755964f2f8..8fea384d392b 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ static inline void plic_irq_toggle(const struct cpumask *mask,
> }
> }
> -static void plic_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
> +static void plic_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
Of course, this is wrong. The perks of trying to do something at the
last minute while boarding an airplane. Don't do that.
This should of course read "plic_irq_unmask"...
> {
> unsigned int cpu = cpumask_any_and(irq_data_get_affinity_mask(d),
> cpu_online_mask);
> @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void plic_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
> plic_irq_toggle(cpumask_of(cpu), d->hwirq, 1);
> }
> -static void plic_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
> +static void plic_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
... and this should be "plic_irq_mask".
[...]
Reviewed-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxx> (QEMU Boot)
Huhuh... It may be that QEMU doesn't implement the full-fat PLIC, as
the above bug should have kept the IRQ lines masked.
Yep, looks like the PLIC implementation in QEMU is nonsense. That needs to be
rewritten, and this needs to be tested on hardware.
We should test them on the hardware, but I don't have any with me
right now. David's probably in the best spot to do this, as he's got
a setup that does all the weird interrupt sources (ie, PCIe).
David: do you mind testing this? I've put the patch here:
ssh://gitolite.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/palmer/linux.git
-b plic-fasteoi
I've pushed out a branch with the fixed patch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git irq/plic-fasteoi
Thanks,
M.