All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yijing Wang <wangyijing@huawei.com>
To: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:12:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <546E9F8C.4050307@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <546E9D80.3090405@linux.intel.com>

On 2014/11/21 10:03, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 2014/11/21 9:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Yijing Wang wrote:
>>> On 2014/11/21 0:31, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> Bjorn, Yijing,
>>>>
>>>> I've just realized that patch c167caf8d174 (PCI/MSI: Remove useless
>>>> bus->msi assignment) completely breaks MSI on arm64 when using the new
>>>> MSI stacked domain:
>>>
>>> Sorry, this is my first part to refactor MSI related code, now how
>>> to get pci msi_controller depends arch
>>> functions(pcibios_msi_controller() or arch_setup_msi_irq()), we are
>>> working on generic pci_host_bridge, after that, we could eventually
>>> eliminate MSI arch functions and find pci dev 's msi controller by
>>> pci_host_bridge->get_msi_controller().
>>
>> The main question is why you think that pci_host_bridge is the proper
>> place to store that information.
>>
>> On x86 we have DMAR units associated to a single device. Each DMAR
>> unit is a seperate MSI irq domain. 
>>
>> Can you guarantee that the pci_host_bridge is the right point to
>> provide the association of the device to the irq domain?
>>
>> So the real question is:
>>
>>    What is the association level requirement to properly identify the
>>    irqdomain for a specific device on any given architecture with and
>>    without IOMMU, interrupt redirection etc.
>>
>> To be honest: I don't know.
>>
>> My gut feeling tells me that it's at the device level, but I really
>> leave that decision to the experts in that field.
> Hi Thomas and Yijing,
> 	Since we are allocating interrupts for a PCI device, it's
> natural to get irqdomain from the PCI device itself. If we try to
> get irqdomain from a PCI bus or host bridge like
> pci_get_msi_irqdomain(bus or hostbridge), it may fail for x86
> because x86 may build per-device irqdomain theoretically.
> So the preferred interface prototype is:
> 	pci_get_msi_irqdomain(pci_dev) or
> 	pcibios_msi_controller(pci_dev)
> It's flexible enough. For architectures on which irqdomain is
> associated with PCI bus or host bridge, you could get the bus
> or host bridge from pci_dev. And it won't cause extra computation
> because you always need to get bus or host bridge from the pci_dev.

Hi Gerry, I mean we could find msi_controller by calling
pci_host_bridge->pci_get_msi_irqdomain/msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev)
to avoid arch weak function like pcibios_get_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev). :)


> Regards!
> Gerry
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> 	tglx
>>
> 
> .
> 


-- 
Thanks!
Yijing


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: wangyijing@huawei.com (Yijing Wang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:12:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <546E9F8C.4050307@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <546E9D80.3090405@linux.intel.com>

On 2014/11/21 10:03, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 2014/11/21 9:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Yijing Wang wrote:
>>> On 2014/11/21 0:31, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> Bjorn, Yijing,
>>>>
>>>> I've just realized that patch c167caf8d174 (PCI/MSI: Remove useless
>>>> bus->msi assignment) completely breaks MSI on arm64 when using the new
>>>> MSI stacked domain:
>>>
>>> Sorry, this is my first part to refactor MSI related code, now how
>>> to get pci msi_controller depends arch
>>> functions(pcibios_msi_controller() or arch_setup_msi_irq()), we are
>>> working on generic pci_host_bridge, after that, we could eventually
>>> eliminate MSI arch functions and find pci dev 's msi controller by
>>> pci_host_bridge->get_msi_controller().
>>
>> The main question is why you think that pci_host_bridge is the proper
>> place to store that information.
>>
>> On x86 we have DMAR units associated to a single device. Each DMAR
>> unit is a seperate MSI irq domain. 
>>
>> Can you guarantee that the pci_host_bridge is the right point to
>> provide the association of the device to the irq domain?
>>
>> So the real question is:
>>
>>    What is the association level requirement to properly identify the
>>    irqdomain for a specific device on any given architecture with and
>>    without IOMMU, interrupt redirection etc.
>>
>> To be honest: I don't know.
>>
>> My gut feeling tells me that it's at the device level, but I really
>> leave that decision to the experts in that field.
> Hi Thomas and Yijing,
> 	Since we are allocating interrupts for a PCI device, it's
> natural to get irqdomain from the PCI device itself. If we try to
> get irqdomain from a PCI bus or host bridge like
> pci_get_msi_irqdomain(bus or hostbridge), it may fail for x86
> because x86 may build per-device irqdomain theoretically.
> So the preferred interface prototype is:
> 	pci_get_msi_irqdomain(pci_dev) or
> 	pcibios_msi_controller(pci_dev)
> It's flexible enough. For architectures on which irqdomain is
> associated with PCI bus or host bridge, you could get the bus
> or host bridge from pci_dev. And it won't cause extra computation
> because you always need to get bus or host bridge from the pci_dev.

Hi Gerry, I mean we could find msi_controller by calling
pci_host_bridge->pci_get_msi_irqdomain/msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev)
to avoid arch weak function like pcibios_get_msi_controller(struct pci_dev *pdev). :)


> Regards!
> Gerry
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> 	tglx
>>
> 
> .
> 


-- 
Thanks!
Yijing

  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-21  2:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-20 16:31 Removal of bus->msi assignment breaks MSI with stacked domains Marc Zyngier
2014-11-20 16:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-20 21:53 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-20 21:53   ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-20 23:10   ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-20 23:10     ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-20 23:30     ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-20 23:30       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-21  9:33       ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21  9:33         ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21  1:54     ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  1:54       ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  2:25       ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  2:25         ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  3:46         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  3:46           ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 10:00       ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 10:00         ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 17:31       ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-21 17:31         ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-11-22  4:13         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-22  4:13           ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  1:22 ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  1:22   ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  1:46   ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21  1:46     ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21  2:03     ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  2:03       ` Jiang Liu
2014-11-21  2:12       ` Yijing Wang [this message]
2014-11-21  2:12         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  2:05     ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  2:05       ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21  8:46       ` Lucas Stach
2014-11-21  8:46         ` Lucas Stach
2014-11-21 10:29     ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 10:29       ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 10:49       ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21 10:49         ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-11-21 11:30         ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 11:30           ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 12:04       ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 12:04         ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 10:11   ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 10:11     ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-21 11:57     ` Yijing Wang
2014-11-21 11:57       ` Yijing Wang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=546E9F8C.4050307@huawei.com \
    --to=wangyijing@huawei.com \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jiang.liu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.