From: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lenb@kernel.org, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, wency@cn.fujitsu.com,
caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, ddaney.cavm@gmail.com,
okaya@codeaurora.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
jiang.liu@linux.intel.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:34:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AADDDB.2050303@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8924816.km1PStJUTB@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 01/29/2016 11:37 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 02:57:36 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Hi Chen,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for persevering and working this all out!
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 09:35:46AM +0800, Chen Fan wrote:
>>> In our X86 environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails and result in
>>> the call trace below, here we introduce an IRQ_NOTCONNECTED to identify
>>> the device interrupt is not connected.
>>>
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>> genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa)
>>> CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>> Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>>
>>> Call Trace:
>>> dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>> __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>> request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>> i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>> local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>> i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
>> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
>>
>> Rafael, I assume you'll take this if you think it's ready.
> I can do that.
>
>> This is a subtle problem and, if I understand correctly, can manifest
>> intermittently depending on the machine configuration. For example,
>> if you got rid of the "megasa" driver, I suspect i801_smbus would not
>> complain, but it wouldn't work.
>>
>> I think we might want to consider doing something for non-x86 arches
>> as well, but we can do that later. I propose a changelog like the
>> following. Please correct anything I got wrong. I suspect we will be
>> revisiting this issue eventually, so I'd like to have a good
>> description.
>>
>>
>> x86/PCI: Recognize that Interrupt Line 255 means "not connected"
>>
>> Per the x86-specific footnote to PCI spec r3.0, sec 6.2.4, the value 255 in
>> the Interrupt Line register means "unknown" or "no connection."
>> Previously, when we couldn't derive an IRQ from the _PRT, we fell back to
>> using the value from Interrupt Line as an IRQ. It's questionable whether
>> we should do that at all, but the spec clearly suggests we shouldn't do it
>> for the value 255 on x86.
>>
>> Calling request_irq() with IRQ 255 may succeed, but the driver won't
>> receive any interrupts. Or, if IRQ 255 is shared with another device, it
>> may succeed, and the driver's ISR will be called at random times when the
>> *other* device interrupts. Or it may fail if another device is using IRQ
>> 255 with incompatible flags. What we *want* is for request_irq() to fail
>> predictably so the driver can fall back to polling.
>>
>> On x86, assume 255 in the Interrupt Line means the INTx line is not
>> connected. In that case, set dev->irq to IRQ_NOTCONNECTED so request_irq()
>> will fail gracefully with -ENOTCONN.
>>
>> We found this problem on a system where Secure Boot firmware assigned
>> Interrupt Line 255 to an i801_smbus device and another device was already
>> using MSI-X IRQ 255. This was in v3.10, where i801_probe() fails if
>> request_irq() fails:
>>
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>> genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa)
>> CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>> Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>> Call Trace:
>> dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>> __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>> request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>> i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>> local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>> i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>
>> After aeb8a3d16ae0 ("i2c: i801: Check if interrupts are disabled"),
>> i801_probe() will fall back to polling if request_irq() fails. But we
>> still need this patch because request_irq() may succeed or fail depending
>> on other devices in the system. If request_irq() fails, i801_smbus will
>> work by falling back to polling, but if it succeeds, i801_smbus won't work
>> because it expects interrupts that it may not receive.
> I like this. :-)
>
> Chen, can you please add the changelog as suggested by Bjorn to the patch
> and resend?
Sure, Thank all of you.
Chen
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
>
> .
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<lenb@kernel.org>, <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>,
<wency@cn.fujitsu.com>, <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
<ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>, <okaya@codeaurora.org>,
<bhelgaas@google.com>, <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>,
<linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:34:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AADDDB.2050303@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8924816.km1PStJUTB@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 01/29/2016 11:37 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 02:57:36 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Hi Chen,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for persevering and working this all out!
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 09:35:46AM +0800, Chen Fan wrote:
>>> In our X86 environment, when enable Secure boot, we found an abnormal
>>> phenomenon as following call trace shows. after investigation, we
>>> found the firmware assigned an irq number 255 which means unknown
>>> or no connection in PCI local spec for i801_smbus, meanwhile the
>>> ACPI didn't configure the pci irq routing. and the 255 irq number
>>> was assigned for megasa msix without IRQF_SHARED. then in this case
>>> during i801_smbus probe, the i801_smbus driver would request irq with
>>> bad irq number 255. but the 255 irq number was assigned for memgasa
>>> with MSIX enable. which will cause request_irq fails and result in
>>> the call trace below, here we introduce an IRQ_NOTCONNECTED to identify
>>> the device interrupt is not connected.
>>>
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>>> genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa)
>>> CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>>> Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>>>
>>> Call Trace:
>>> dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>>> __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>>> request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>>> i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>>> local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>>> i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>>> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
>> Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
>>
>> Rafael, I assume you'll take this if you think it's ready.
> I can do that.
>
>> This is a subtle problem and, if I understand correctly, can manifest
>> intermittently depending on the machine configuration. For example,
>> if you got rid of the "megasa" driver, I suspect i801_smbus would not
>> complain, but it wouldn't work.
>>
>> I think we might want to consider doing something for non-x86 arches
>> as well, but we can do that later. I propose a changelog like the
>> following. Please correct anything I got wrong. I suspect we will be
>> revisiting this issue eventually, so I'd like to have a good
>> description.
>>
>>
>> x86/PCI: Recognize that Interrupt Line 255 means "not connected"
>>
>> Per the x86-specific footnote to PCI spec r3.0, sec 6.2.4, the value 255 in
>> the Interrupt Line register means "unknown" or "no connection."
>> Previously, when we couldn't derive an IRQ from the _PRT, we fell back to
>> using the value from Interrupt Line as an IRQ. It's questionable whether
>> we should do that at all, but the spec clearly suggests we shouldn't do it
>> for the value 255 on x86.
>>
>> Calling request_irq() with IRQ 255 may succeed, but the driver won't
>> receive any interrupts. Or, if IRQ 255 is shared with another device, it
>> may succeed, and the driver's ISR will be called at random times when the
>> *other* device interrupts. Or it may fail if another device is using IRQ
>> 255 with incompatible flags. What we *want* is for request_irq() to fail
>> predictably so the driver can fall back to polling.
>>
>> On x86, assume 255 in the Interrupt Line means the INTx line is not
>> connected. In that case, set dev->irq to IRQ_NOTCONNECTED so request_irq()
>> will fail gracefully with -ENOTCONN.
>>
>> We found this problem on a system where Secure Boot firmware assigned
>> Interrupt Line 255 to an i801_smbus device and another device was already
>> using MSI-X IRQ 255. This was in v3.10, where i801_probe() fails if
>> request_irq() fails:
>>
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: enabling device (0140 -> 0143)
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: can't derive routing for PCI INT C
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: PCI INT C: no GSI
>> genirq: Flags mismatch irq 255. 00000080 (i801_smbus) vs. 00000000 (megasa)
>> CPU: 0 PID: 2487 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.10.0-229.el7.x86_64 #1
>> Hardware name: FUJITSU PRIMEQUEST 2800E2/D3736, BIOS PRIMEQUEST 2000 Serie5
>> Call Trace:
>> dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>> __setup_irq+0x54a/0x570
>> request_threaded_irq+0xcc/0x170
>> i801_probe+0x32f/0x508 [i2c_i801]
>> local_pci_probe+0x45/0xa0
>> i801_smbus 0000:00:1f.3: Failed to allocate irq 255: -16
>> i801_smbus: probe of 0000:00:1f.3 failed with error -16
>>
>> After aeb8a3d16ae0 ("i2c: i801: Check if interrupts are disabled"),
>> i801_probe() will fall back to polling if request_irq() fails. But we
>> still need this patch because request_irq() may succeed or fail depending
>> on other devices in the system. If request_irq() fails, i801_smbus will
>> work by falling back to polling, but if it succeeds, i801_smbus won't work
>> because it expects interrupts that it may not receive.
> I like this. :-)
>
> Chen, can you please add the changelog as suggested by Bjorn to the patch
> and resend?
Sure, Thank all of you.
Chen
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
>
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-29 3:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-28 1:35 [PATCH v4 1/1] pci: fix unavailable irq number 255 reported by BIOS Chen Fan
2016-01-28 1:35 ` Chen Fan
2016-01-28 8:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-01-28 20:57 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2016-01-29 3:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-29 3:34 ` Chen Fan [this message]
2016-01-29 3:34 ` Chen Fan
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=56AADDDB.2050303@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=chen.fan.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=ddaney.cavm@gmail.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=jiang.liu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=okaya@codeaurora.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wency@cn.fujitsu.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.