On 2020/3/2 3:00, Marc Zyngier wrote:

On 2020-02-28 19:37, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

On 2020-02-20 03:11, Zenghui Yu wrote:

quoted

quoted

Do we really need to grab the vpe_lock for those which are belong to
the same irqchip with its_vpe_set_affinity()? The IRQ core code should
already ensure the mutual exclusion among them, wrong?

I've been trying to think about that, but jet-lag keeps getting in the 
way.
I empirically think that you are right, but I need to go and check the 
various
code paths to be sure. Hopefully I'll have a bit more brain space next 
week.

So I slept on it and came back to my senses. The only case we actually need
to deal with is when an affinity change impacts *another* interrupt.

There is only two instances of this issue:

- vLPIs have their *physical* affinity impacted by the affinity of the
   vPE. Their virtual affinity is of course unchanged, but the physical
   one becomes important with direct invalidation. Taking a per-VPE lock
   in such context should address the issue.

- vSGIs have the exact same issue, plus the matter of requiring some
   *extra* one when reading the pending state, which requires a RMW
   on two different registers. This requires an extra per-RD lock.

Agreed with both!

My original patch was stupidly complex, and the irq_desc lock is
perfectly enough to deal with anything that only affects the interrupt
state itself.

GICv4 + direct invalidation for vLPIs breaks this by bypassing the
serialization initially provided by the ITS, as the RD is completely
out of band. The per-vPE lock brings back this serialization.

I've updated the branch, which seems to run OK on D05. I still need
to run the usual tests on the FVP model though.

I have pulled the latest branch and it looks good to me, except for
one remaining concern:

GICR_INV{LPI, ALL}R + GICR_SYNCR can also be accessed concurrently
by multiple direct invalidation, should we also use the per-RD lock
to ensure mutual exclusion?  It looks not so harmful though, as this
will only increase one's polling time against the Busy bit (in my view).

But I point it out again for confirmation.


Thanks,
Zenghui


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel