A problem about SPI Interrupt Configuration

[yangyingliang@huawei.com (Yang Yingliang)]

On 2016/1/22 15:57, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:38:13 +0800
> Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Yang,
>
>> Hi, Marc
>>
>> I got some error messages "RWP timeout, gone fishing".
>>
>> The case is :
>>
>> 			CPU0												CPU1
>> 													acquire desc->lock in __setup_irq()
>> 															enable irq in __setup_irq()
>> read iar in gic_handle_irq()
>> waiting for desc->lock in handle_fasteoi_irq()
>> 												call gic_set_affinity() from setup_affinity()
>> 												waiting for the irq deactive in gic_do_wait_for_rwp()
>>
>>
>> The hardware will not clear GICD_CTLR.RWP until the interrupt is not
>> active. The interrupt is keeping active while it's waiting for
>> desc->lock on cpu0. But the lock is hold by cpu1 while it's waiting for
>> the interrupt is not active. It causes a deadlock here in 1s.
>>
>>
>> And the GICv3 SPEC says:
>>
>> 4.5.5 SPI Interrupt Configuration
>> To configure an SPI interrupt, to ensure that interrupts are never
>> distributed using partially updated configuration
>> information, software must:
>> o Ensure the interrupt is not active
>> o Ensure that the interrupt is disabled
>> o This might be done either by writing to GICD_CTLR to clear the enables
>> for a group, or
>> o By writing to GICD_ICENABLERn to clear the Enable bit of the interrupt
>> (see section 5.3.11).
>> o In both cases, software must poll GICD_CTLR.RWP to ensure the effects
>> are visible (see section
>> 5.3.20).
>> o Program the routing (if appropriate), priority and group
>> o Enable the interrupt (if required)
>>
>> Because it says "Ensure the interrupt is not active", so I can not tell
>> it is a hardware or software problem.
>>
>> Can you please give some advice?
>
> Thanks for the accurate description of the problem. This looks to be a
> core issue, or at least a problem between core code and the way the GIC
> behaves, unfortunately. The architecture expects the interrupt to be
> fully configured before it is enabled and made active, while the core
> code does this the other way around.
>
> Can you please have a go at the patch below and let me know if it
> improve things? This is just a test, and definitely not the complete
> solution, but I'd like to find out if I'm on the right track.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	M.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> index 0eebaee..e5802fb 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> @@ -1303,12 +1303,6 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
>   		if (new->flags & IRQF_ONESHOT)
>   			desc->istate |= IRQS_ONESHOT;
>
> -		if (irq_settings_can_autoenable(desc))
> -			irq_startup(desc, true);
> -		else
> -			/* Undo nested disables: */
> -			desc->depth = 1;
> -
>   		/* Exclude IRQ from balancing if requested */
>   		if (new->flags & IRQF_NOBALANCING) {
>   			irq_settings_set_no_balancing(desc);
> @@ -1318,6 +1312,12 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
>   		/* Set default affinity mask once everything is setup */
>   		setup_affinity(desc, mask);
>
> +		if (irq_settings_can_autoenable(desc))
> +			irq_startup(desc, true);
> +		else
> +			/* Undo nested disables: */
> +			desc->depth = 1;
> +
>   	} else if (new->flags & IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK) {
>   		unsigned int nmsk = new->flags & IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK;
>   		unsigned int omsk = irq_settings_get_trigger_mask(desc);
>

This patch can avoid the case I said in this mail.
But in other case like set affinity by the /proc/irq/x/smp_affinity,
it's will have the same problem _if_ the hardware is waiting for deactive.

Thanks,
Yang