Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2023 04:21:01 +0300
Message-Id: <CSU43S5BY69V.23N6V1T28OEBY@suppilovahvero>
From:   "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     "Jerry Snitselaar" <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Lino Sanfilippo" <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>, <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        <jgg@ziepe.ca>, <hdegoede@redhat.com>, <oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev>,
        <lkp@intel.com>, <peter.ujfalusi@linux.intel.com>,
        <peterz@infradead.org>, <linux@mniewoehner.de>,
        <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>, <lukas@wunner.de>,
        <p.rosenberger@kunbus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: Handle interrupt storm
References: <20230522143105.8617-1-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
 <CSTVVFNKUVJW.P69FKI6IF3ZN@suppilovahvero>
 <CSTW9UX4ERDZ.VBD1QIWLBM75@suppilovahvero>
 <kxb36qqgtnyqed4cgd5fpvmwway2v4watcfg3vdj3okm76scsy@prcbk5pjv4gk>
In-Reply-To: <kxb36qqgtnyqed4cgd5fpvmwway2v4watcfg3vdj3okm76scsy@prcbk5pjv4gk>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed May 24, 2023 at 1:32 AM EEST, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> I do worry about how many cases will be reported once 6.4 is released,
> and this eventually makes its way into distributions. In either case
> the dmi table will need to be maintained. The UPX-11i case is a
> different issue, and IIRC the L490 it needed a DMI entry, because
> trying to catch the irq storm wasn't solving the issue there. I
> imagine other odd cases will be popping up as well.
>
> So far we have 2 irq storm reports with peterz's P360 Tiny, and I
> guess that Inspur system reported by the kernel test robot. Then there
> is whatever is going on with Peter Ujfalusi's UPX-11i.

Yeah, I agree that we need both in order to reach stability.

> > Out of top of my head you could e.g. window average the duration betwee=
n
> > IRQs. When the average goes beyond threshold, then you shutdown
> > interrupts.
>
> Just to make sure I have it clear in my head, you mean when the
> average is shorter than the threshold duration between interrupts,
> yes? My brain wants to read 'When the average goes beyond threshold'
> as 'threshold < average'.
>
> Does the check need to be a rolling window like 1/2 currently has? I
> expect that if the problem exists it will be noticed in the first
> window checked. I think what I originally tried was to check over some
> interval from when the handler first ran, disable interrupts if
> needed, and then skip the check from then on when the handler ran.

How about just: average' =3D (average / (then - now)) /2

And if average' > thershold, disable interrupts.

BR, Jarkko