Received: by 2002:a25:6193:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id v141csp1362979ybb; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 00:03:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIuNou2ebJiAx2rQ1b8aaPm3OcmvMq1PIa2RhgCRuAslYdUc1mnA+lbyR1XoK02a86g5Kdj X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:b30:: with SMTP id t16mr2509429oij.66.1586415831436; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:03:51 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1586415831; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ycYehElkD0bnx0y/pBftwzZL4NEQBL7FrtIGSDKshXmFatiI/lPfIBzZbmuEqljS5H IaI+JkIFFj0t5q1LcOXPup7amOTzGkELdek6V11eS64xv0jR5KKSipRvmTDW2uDc48L0 0U/DYq8z/HKw+zOMYkkrCd6eMLQnY1P6RYGlqKpqshvCJnB1PFVdBt4DekPSs8yC9SEJ Po8AV+Ia+H+WbOF+IrOJ0Jw3XRZjqFW9JiVrTcyuARW1tZLPWzQrGwnrBb8Ot4sc9qOt nGQAEhqWr4qyuBzJesMNpAOr6j9/B8FGjtmlV9wNnz+T2qa26v7nWLBdqKDdm+CZYPvN 8j2Q== 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 :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=umt4T5MlrhJAKZP0o5bpLXsV7+6gF6nfyqNC4cT0KGQ=; b=bLocTiFnuf+6pglhdWmZmQGmJQ6eF0P8fvTEiIOpzWxAQu7dG/RPwNeaLdzNQTU67B Z2w22ZF4XLKDacBKFEFtEWqA+e6LJB31lsOJo5lMiM+EC4wiZTG7uBkplPPPMKkToLR7 dT4uf+RZBEC5NYC1kBX6kWZQ4wPFteOwwIjhAKDbEAVf90HP+PG9iRr3A15vIvnrh5aW L7NWbA8MVjD5Pfg5rTU8J0yFfjaqKCEbGspbQS71DyJL6FtAOD31Vm4z3HsUV0KbeWbC X0E2eNAYDGUQRZlUSSQMc4TuhNnVvKF0mLyYY0f4345LEzdVwyQe/vw4ylHDRFrH7Lcv eCOg== 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 w18si3465378otp.73.2020.04.09.00.03.35; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 00:03:51 -0700 (PDT) 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 S1725997AbgDIHCq (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 9 Apr 2020 03:02:46 -0400 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([185.176.76.210]:2645 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725783AbgDIHCq (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2020 03:02:46 -0400 Received: from lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 0F0463508B4D76666315; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:02:45 +0100 (IST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.47.11.47) by lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:02:44 +0100 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/smmuv3: Fix shared interrupt handling To: Robin Murphy , "will@kernel.org" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" CC: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Shameerali Kolothum Thodi , "harb@amperecomputing.com" , "tuanphan@os.amperecomputing.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: From: John Garry Message-ID: <34dd7c2e-b6db-684f-f0a2-73f2e6951308@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 08:02:20 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.47.11.47] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml738-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.188) To lhreml724-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.75) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/04/2020 17:49, Robin Murphy wrote: > IRQF_SHARED is dangerous, since it allows other agents to retarget the > IRQ's affinity without migrating PMU contexts to match, breaking the way > in which perf manages mutual exclusion for accessing events. Although > this means it's not realistically possible to support PMU IRQs being > shared with other drivers, we *can* handle sharing between multiple PMU > instances with some explicit affinity bookkeeping and manual interrupt > multiplexing. Hi Robin, Out of curiosity, do we even need to support shared interrupts for any implementations today? D06 board: john@ubuntu:~$ more /proc/interrupts | grep smmuv3-pmu 989: 0 0 0 0 ITS-pMSI 133120 Edge smmuv3-pmu 990: 0 0 0 0 ITS-pMSI 135168 Edge smmuv3-pmu 991: 0 0 0 0 ITS-pMSI 137216 Edge smmuv3-pmu 992: 0 0 0 0 ITS-pMSI 139264 Edge smmuv3-pmu 993: 0 0 0 0 ITS-pMSI 141312 Edge smmuv3-pmu 994: 0 0 0 0 ITS-pMSI 143360 Edge smmuv3-pmu 995: 0 0 0 0 ITS-pMSI 145408 Edge smmuv3-pmu 996: 0 0 0 0 ITS-pMSI 147456 Edge smmuv3-pmu Thanks, John