Received: by 2002:ad5:474a:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id i10csp3498487imu; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:02:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6S3ETWXbauRQqHD+K7AP7k+PvhJW+uCBL676mkk1ufZd7elr2orkMW3cQ3ccX6rsdZ4xMS X-Received: by 2002:a65:6645:: with SMTP id z5mr20094083pgv.351.1548684142587; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:02:22 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1548684142; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Oji067XUgwmn5EPAnSJBlNacTQ+o9nWBt1YDeUFpnAaqXEwDZ/yVVCauXz+CYyUrZC 7g3PVOmk9ybpJHDfELmpUZ6WmQH/Lq03e1PQzvT/L2VXgDSLUqmk4yFD/sq4sACsPn7B EpUgnF2lF+A9OScZG/X8V6wD7nOdLZ9HvkfdzbvrY/aokC02ptX/VpzDEOL6v34bdMaX 9tsD7zm3lDX5XTGn0/Z7+Au4KLePIHLFEA7/xw9D6L6o5BtXUzromBhfuAnSNBxmPEn6 rxIvXCu94wBpaCooQA3lP+2APLlcwzw56uiFyJxPe+KSh7qG967ZB+nrJP/rc7h6nYde WsOQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to :subject; bh=niiA26a4NrhMM90Q0qbI52ZD78c3zNcO9r54vlACzac=; b=1CNceLN9072EKGE5p35E7SXYpLA1oO3bIAgUYZE3qPjhx5r0qI4rnq/tJY+nwIgXSG BvR2jADHa1hYB6t+UMdI4CpJ8IIralPOz87fGOBlhKtUEGIjMfSB5VAARs85YmySxDvc f4RE29gGBf73DuobBZu22hF7K8w0vOIYCEs8qOHHUox8LXcyB8B9jzUm94UQbKfQaDeP OP2oFuBYjTI/pmeDHLdyghIqOWrxrSLId2dnSwx3jRZtj2x8WXqrLZkX7X9ArLh0IvYl qf5rHmiCOhdpFWn7Mj12erZN8t5NUfFqdeDiAQh8j5IqBOB7O22QpfLrmmT+tQqRiY3J lSQw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f186si25985463pfb.67.2019.01.28.06.02.03; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 06:02:22 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727030AbfA1N7u (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:59:50 -0500 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32]:51228 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726719AbfA1N7u (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:59:50 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 210BBFF4E4F2B7ECA747; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:59:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.184.212.80) by DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:59:40 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 22/26] irqchip/gic-v3: Allow interrupts to be set as pseudo-NMI To: Julien Thierry , , CC: , , , , , , , , Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , libin 00196512 , guohanjun 00470146 References: <1548084825-8803-1-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com> <1548084825-8803-23-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com> <8c0efe3f-1fc7-cbc7-0086-bd9c379cf0fc@huawei.com> <315b0845-441d-4e02-d0a8-03769b63caee@arm.com> From: "liwei (GF)" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:59:39 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <315b0845-441d-4e02-d0a8-03769b63caee@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.184.212.80] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Julien & Marc, Thanks for your reply, I misunderstood the usage of ready_percpu_nmi() and teardown_percpu_nmi() indeed. I think that adding a note about this in the comment of request_percpu_nmi() will be nice. Regards, Wei Li On 2019/1/28 16:57, Julien Thierry wrote: > Hi, > > On 26/01/2019 10:19, liwei (GF) wrote: >> >> >> On 2019/1/21 23:33, Julien Thierry wrote: >>> Implement NMI callbacks for GICv3 irqchip. Install NMI safe handlers >>> when setting up interrupt line as NMI. >>> >>> Only SPIs and PPIs are allowed to be set up as NMI. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry >>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner >>> Cc: Jason Cooper >>> Cc: Marc Zyngier >>> --- >>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c >>> index 4df1e94..447d8ab 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c >>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c >> (snip) >>> >>> +static int gic_irq_nmi_setup(struct irq_data *d) >>> +{ >>> + struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(d->irq); >>> + >>> + if (!gic_supports_nmi()) >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + >>> + if (gic_peek_irq(d, GICD_ISENABLER)) { >>> + pr_err("Cannot set NMI property of enabled IRQ %u\n", d->irq); >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + } >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * A secondary irq_chip should be in charge of LPI request, >>> + * it should not be possible to get there >>> + */ >>> + if (WARN_ON(gic_irq(d) >= 8192)) >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + >>> + /* desc lock should already be held */ >>> + if (gic_irq(d) < 32) { >>> + /* Setting up PPI as NMI, only switch handler for first NMI */ >>> + if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&ppi_nmi_refs[gic_irq(d) - 16])) { >>> + refcount_set(&ppi_nmi_refs[gic_irq(d) - 16], 1); >>> + desc->handle_irq = handle_percpu_devid_fasteoi_nmi; >>> + } >>> + } else { >>> + desc->handle_irq = handle_fasteoi_nmi; >>> + } >>> + >>> + gic_set_irq_prio(gic_irq(d), gic_dist_base(d), GICD_INT_NMI_PRI); >>> + >>> + return 0; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static void gic_irq_nmi_teardown(struct irq_data *d) >>> +{ >>> + struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(d->irq); >>> + >>> + if (WARN_ON(!gic_supports_nmi())) >>> + return; >>> + >>> + if (gic_peek_irq(d, GICD_ISENABLER)) { >>> + pr_err("Cannot set NMI property of enabled IRQ %u\n", d->irq); >>> + return; >>> + } >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * A secondary irq_chip should be in charge of LPI request, >>> + * it should not be possible to get there >>> + */ >>> + if (WARN_ON(gic_irq(d) >= 8192)) >>> + return; >>> + >>> + /* desc lock should already be held */ >>> + if (gic_irq(d) < 32) { >>> + /* Tearing down NMI, only switch handler for last NMI */ >>> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&ppi_nmi_refs[gic_irq(d) - 16])) >>> + desc->handle_irq = handle_percpu_devid_irq; >>> + } else { >>> + desc->handle_irq = handle_fasteoi_irq; >>> + } >>> + >>> + gic_set_irq_prio(gic_irq(d), gic_dist_base(d), GICD_INT_DEF_PRI); >>> +} >>> + >> >> Hello Julien, >> I am afraid the setting of priority is not correct here. If the irq is in redistributor(gic_irq(d) < 32), >> we should set the priority on each cpu, while we just set the priority on the current cpu here. > > As Marc stated, to work with PPIs, the core IRQ API provides a set of > *_percpu_irq functions (request, enable, disable...). > > The current idea is that the driver is in charge of calling > ready_percpu_nmi() before enabling on the correct CPU, in a similar > manner that the driver is in charge of calling enable_percpu_irq() and > disable_percpu_irq() on the correct CPU. > > >> static inline void __iomem *gic_dist_base(struct irq_data *d) >> { >> if (gic_irq_in_rdist(d)) /* SGI+PPI -> SGI_base for this CPU */ >> return gic_data_rdist_sgi_base(); >> >> if (d->hwirq <= 1023) /* SPI -> dist_base */ >> return gic_data.dist_base; >> >> return NULL; >> } >> >> I tried to add a smp_call_function here, but the kernel reported a warning as we have disabled irq >> when calling raw_spin_lock_irqsave in request_nmi or ready_percpu_nmi. >> [ 2.137262] Call trace: >> [ 2.137265] smp_call_function_many+0xf8/0x3a0 >> [ 2.137267] smp_call_function+0x40/0x58 >> [ 2.137271] gic_irq_nmi_setup+0xe8/0x118 >> [ 2.137275] ready_percpu_nmi+0x6c/0xf0> [ 2.137279] armpmu_request_irq+0x228/0x250 > > Your issue lies here, if your PMU IRQ is a PPI, you shouldn't be calling > ready_percpu_nmi() at the time you request but probably somewhere like > arm_perf_starting_cpu(). > > And you wouldn't need the smp_call to set the priority. > > Hope this helps. > >> [ 2.137281] arm_pmu_acpi_init+0x150/0x2f0 >> [ 2.137284] do_one_initcall+0x54/0x218 >> [ 2.137289] kernel_init_freeable+0x230/0x354 >> [ 2.137293] kernel_init+0x18/0x118 >> [ 2.137295] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 >> > > Thanks, >