From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Cc: jason@lakedaemon.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Ensure L2 vPE table is allocated at RD level
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 12:27:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <621f153637ccabb85ede10e2c495c38f@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200204090940.1225-4-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Hi Zenghui,
Thanks for this. A few comments below.
On 2020-02-04 09:09, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> In GICv4, we will ensure that level2 vPE table memory is allocated
> for the specified vpe_id on all v4 ITS, in its_alloc_vpe_table().
> This still works well for the typical GICv4.1 implementation, where
> the new vPE table is shared between the ITSs and the RDs.
>
> To make things explicit, introduce allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry() to
> make sure that the L2 tables are allocated on all v4.1 RDs. We're
> likely not need to allocate memory in it because the vPE table is
> shared and (L2 table is) already allocated at ITS level, except
> for the case where the ITS doesn't share anything (say SVPET == 0,
> practically unlikely but architecturally allowed).
Huh... Interesting. I definitely don't anticipate the case to pop up,
but you are right, this is architecturally allowed.
> The implementation of allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry() is mostly
> copied from its_alloc_table_entry().
>
> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> index 0f1fe56ce0af..c1d01454eec8 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> @@ -2443,6 +2443,64 @@ static u64
> inherit_vpe_l1_table_from_rd(cpumask_t **mask)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry(int cpu, u32 id)
Given that this actually allocates the L2 table, I'd rather have it
called
something like allocate_vpe_l2_table() as the pendant of
allocate_vpe_l1_table().
This should also properly return a bool rather then an int.
> +{
> + void __iomem *base = gic_data_rdist_cpu(cpu)->rd_base;
> + u64 val, gpsz, npg;
> + unsigned int psz, esz, idx;
> + struct page *page;
> + __le64 *table;
> +
> + if (!gic_rdists->has_rvpeid)
> + return true;
> +
> + val = gits_read_vpropbaser(base + SZ_128K + GICR_VPROPBASER);
> +
> + esz = FIELD_GET(GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_ENTRY_SIZE, val) + 1;
> + gpsz = FIELD_GET(GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_PAGE_SIZE, val);
> + npg = FIELD_GET(GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_SIZE, val) + 1;
> +
> + switch (gpsz) {
> + default:
> + WARN_ON(1);
> + /* fall through */
> + case GIC_PAGE_SIZE_4K:
> + psz = SZ_4K;
> + break;
> + case GIC_PAGE_SIZE_16K:
> + psz = SZ_16K;
> + break;
> + case GIC_PAGE_SIZE_64K:
> + psz = SZ_64K;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /* Don't allow vpe_id that exceeds single, flat table limit */
> + if (!(val & GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_INDIRECT))
> + return (id < (npg * psz / (esz * SZ_8)));
> +
> + /* Compute 1st level table index & check if that exceeds table limit
> */
> + idx = id >> ilog2(psz / (esz * SZ_8));
> + if (idx >= (npg * psz / GITS_LVL1_ENTRY_SIZE))
> + return false;
> +
> + table = gic_data_rdist_cpu(cpu)->vpe_l1_base;
> +
> + /* Allocate memory for 2nd level table */
> + if (!table[idx]) {
> + page = alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, get_order(psz));
> + if (!page)
> + return false;
> +
> + table[idx] = cpu_to_le64(page_to_phys(page) | GITS_BASER_VALID);
I think we may need a cache flushing here in some circumstances. We
certainly
have it in its_alloc_table_entry.
> +
> + /* Ensure updated table contents are visible to RD hardware */
> + dsb(sy);
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int allocate_vpe_l1_table(void)
> {
> void __iomem *vlpi_base = gic_data_rdist_vlpi_base();
> @@ -2957,6 +3015,7 @@ static bool its_alloc_device_table(struct
> its_node *its, u32 dev_id)
> static bool its_alloc_vpe_table(u32 vpe_id)
> {
> struct its_node *its;
> + int cpu;
>
> /*
> * Make sure the L2 tables are allocated on *all* v4 ITSs. We
> @@ -2979,6 +3038,15 @@ static bool its_alloc_vpe_table(u32 vpe_id)
> return false;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Make sure the L2 tables are allocated for all copies of
> + * the L1 table on *all* v4.1 RDs.
> + */
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
not: You could predicate this on gic_rdists->has_rvpeid so that you
don't
iterate pointlessly on non v4.1 HW.
> + if (!allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry(cpu, vpe_id))
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> return true;
> }
Otherwise, looks good to me.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Cc: jason@lakedaemon.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Ensure L2 vPE table is allocated at RD level
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 12:27:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <621f153637ccabb85ede10e2c495c38f@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200204090940.1225-4-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Hi Zenghui,
Thanks for this. A few comments below.
On 2020-02-04 09:09, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> In GICv4, we will ensure that level2 vPE table memory is allocated
> for the specified vpe_id on all v4 ITS, in its_alloc_vpe_table().
> This still works well for the typical GICv4.1 implementation, where
> the new vPE table is shared between the ITSs and the RDs.
>
> To make things explicit, introduce allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry() to
> make sure that the L2 tables are allocated on all v4.1 RDs. We're
> likely not need to allocate memory in it because the vPE table is
> shared and (L2 table is) already allocated at ITS level, except
> for the case where the ITS doesn't share anything (say SVPET == 0,
> practically unlikely but architecturally allowed).
Huh... Interesting. I definitely don't anticipate the case to pop up,
but you are right, this is architecturally allowed.
> The implementation of allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry() is mostly
> copied from its_alloc_table_entry().
>
> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> index 0f1fe56ce0af..c1d01454eec8 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> @@ -2443,6 +2443,64 @@ static u64
> inherit_vpe_l1_table_from_rd(cpumask_t **mask)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry(int cpu, u32 id)
Given that this actually allocates the L2 table, I'd rather have it
called
something like allocate_vpe_l2_table() as the pendant of
allocate_vpe_l1_table().
This should also properly return a bool rather then an int.
> +{
> + void __iomem *base = gic_data_rdist_cpu(cpu)->rd_base;
> + u64 val, gpsz, npg;
> + unsigned int psz, esz, idx;
> + struct page *page;
> + __le64 *table;
> +
> + if (!gic_rdists->has_rvpeid)
> + return true;
> +
> + val = gits_read_vpropbaser(base + SZ_128K + GICR_VPROPBASER);
> +
> + esz = FIELD_GET(GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_ENTRY_SIZE, val) + 1;
> + gpsz = FIELD_GET(GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_PAGE_SIZE, val);
> + npg = FIELD_GET(GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_SIZE, val) + 1;
> +
> + switch (gpsz) {
> + default:
> + WARN_ON(1);
> + /* fall through */
> + case GIC_PAGE_SIZE_4K:
> + psz = SZ_4K;
> + break;
> + case GIC_PAGE_SIZE_16K:
> + psz = SZ_16K;
> + break;
> + case GIC_PAGE_SIZE_64K:
> + psz = SZ_64K;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /* Don't allow vpe_id that exceeds single, flat table limit */
> + if (!(val & GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_INDIRECT))
> + return (id < (npg * psz / (esz * SZ_8)));
> +
> + /* Compute 1st level table index & check if that exceeds table limit
> */
> + idx = id >> ilog2(psz / (esz * SZ_8));
> + if (idx >= (npg * psz / GITS_LVL1_ENTRY_SIZE))
> + return false;
> +
> + table = gic_data_rdist_cpu(cpu)->vpe_l1_base;
> +
> + /* Allocate memory for 2nd level table */
> + if (!table[idx]) {
> + page = alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, get_order(psz));
> + if (!page)
> + return false;
> +
> + table[idx] = cpu_to_le64(page_to_phys(page) | GITS_BASER_VALID);
I think we may need a cache flushing here in some circumstances. We
certainly
have it in its_alloc_table_entry.
> +
> + /* Ensure updated table contents are visible to RD hardware */
> + dsb(sy);
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int allocate_vpe_l1_table(void)
> {
> void __iomem *vlpi_base = gic_data_rdist_vlpi_base();
> @@ -2957,6 +3015,7 @@ static bool its_alloc_device_table(struct
> its_node *its, u32 dev_id)
> static bool its_alloc_vpe_table(u32 vpe_id)
> {
> struct its_node *its;
> + int cpu;
>
> /*
> * Make sure the L2 tables are allocated on *all* v4 ITSs. We
> @@ -2979,6 +3038,15 @@ static bool its_alloc_vpe_table(u32 vpe_id)
> return false;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Make sure the L2 tables are allocated for all copies of
> + * the L1 table on *all* v4.1 RDs.
> + */
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
not: You could predicate this on gic_rdists->has_rvpeid so that you
don't
iterate pointlessly on non v4.1 HW.
> + if (!allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry(cpu, vpe_id))
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> return true;
> }
Otherwise, looks good to me.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, tglx@linutronix.de,
jason@lakedaemon.net, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Ensure L2 vPE table is allocated at RD level
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 12:27:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <621f153637ccabb85ede10e2c495c38f@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200204090940.1225-4-yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Hi Zenghui,
Thanks for this. A few comments below.
On 2020-02-04 09:09, Zenghui Yu wrote:
> In GICv4, we will ensure that level2 vPE table memory is allocated
> for the specified vpe_id on all v4 ITS, in its_alloc_vpe_table().
> This still works well for the typical GICv4.1 implementation, where
> the new vPE table is shared between the ITSs and the RDs.
>
> To make things explicit, introduce allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry() to
> make sure that the L2 tables are allocated on all v4.1 RDs. We're
> likely not need to allocate memory in it because the vPE table is
> shared and (L2 table is) already allocated at ITS level, except
> for the case where the ITS doesn't share anything (say SVPET == 0,
> practically unlikely but architecturally allowed).
Huh... Interesting. I definitely don't anticipate the case to pop up,
but you are right, this is architecturally allowed.
> The implementation of allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry() is mostly
> copied from its_alloc_table_entry().
>
> Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> index 0f1fe56ce0af..c1d01454eec8 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> @@ -2443,6 +2443,64 @@ static u64
> inherit_vpe_l1_table_from_rd(cpumask_t **mask)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry(int cpu, u32 id)
Given that this actually allocates the L2 table, I'd rather have it
called
something like allocate_vpe_l2_table() as the pendant of
allocate_vpe_l1_table().
This should also properly return a bool rather then an int.
> +{
> + void __iomem *base = gic_data_rdist_cpu(cpu)->rd_base;
> + u64 val, gpsz, npg;
> + unsigned int psz, esz, idx;
> + struct page *page;
> + __le64 *table;
> +
> + if (!gic_rdists->has_rvpeid)
> + return true;
> +
> + val = gits_read_vpropbaser(base + SZ_128K + GICR_VPROPBASER);
> +
> + esz = FIELD_GET(GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_ENTRY_SIZE, val) + 1;
> + gpsz = FIELD_GET(GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_PAGE_SIZE, val);
> + npg = FIELD_GET(GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_SIZE, val) + 1;
> +
> + switch (gpsz) {
> + default:
> + WARN_ON(1);
> + /* fall through */
> + case GIC_PAGE_SIZE_4K:
> + psz = SZ_4K;
> + break;
> + case GIC_PAGE_SIZE_16K:
> + psz = SZ_16K;
> + break;
> + case GIC_PAGE_SIZE_64K:
> + psz = SZ_64K;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /* Don't allow vpe_id that exceeds single, flat table limit */
> + if (!(val & GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_INDIRECT))
> + return (id < (npg * psz / (esz * SZ_8)));
> +
> + /* Compute 1st level table index & check if that exceeds table limit
> */
> + idx = id >> ilog2(psz / (esz * SZ_8));
> + if (idx >= (npg * psz / GITS_LVL1_ENTRY_SIZE))
> + return false;
> +
> + table = gic_data_rdist_cpu(cpu)->vpe_l1_base;
> +
> + /* Allocate memory for 2nd level table */
> + if (!table[idx]) {
> + page = alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO, get_order(psz));
> + if (!page)
> + return false;
> +
> + table[idx] = cpu_to_le64(page_to_phys(page) | GITS_BASER_VALID);
I think we may need a cache flushing here in some circumstances. We
certainly
have it in its_alloc_table_entry.
> +
> + /* Ensure updated table contents are visible to RD hardware */
> + dsb(sy);
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int allocate_vpe_l1_table(void)
> {
> void __iomem *vlpi_base = gic_data_rdist_vlpi_base();
> @@ -2957,6 +3015,7 @@ static bool its_alloc_device_table(struct
> its_node *its, u32 dev_id)
> static bool its_alloc_vpe_table(u32 vpe_id)
> {
> struct its_node *its;
> + int cpu;
>
> /*
> * Make sure the L2 tables are allocated on *all* v4 ITSs. We
> @@ -2979,6 +3038,15 @@ static bool its_alloc_vpe_table(u32 vpe_id)
> return false;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Make sure the L2 tables are allocated for all copies of
> + * the L1 table on *all* v4.1 RDs.
> + */
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
not: You could predicate this on gic_rdists->has_rvpeid so that you
don't
iterate pointlessly on non v4.1 HW.
> + if (!allocate_vpe_l1_table_entry(cpu, vpe_id))
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> return true;
> }
Otherwise, looks good to me.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-05 12:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-04 9:09 [PATCH 0/5] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Cleanup and fixes for GICv4.1 Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` [PATCH 1/5] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Fix programming of GICR_VPROPBASER_4_1_SIZE Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-05 12:43 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-05 12:43 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-05 12:43 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-04 9:09 ` [PATCH 2/5] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Set vpe_l1_base for all redistributors Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` [PATCH RFC 3/5] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Ensure L2 vPE table is allocated at RD level Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-05 12:27 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2020-02-05 12:27 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-05 12:27 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-04 9:09 ` [PATCH 4/5] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Drop 'tmp' in inherit_vpe_l1_table_from_rd() Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` [PATCH 5/5] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Remove superfluous WARN_ON Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-04 9:09 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-05 12:46 ` [PATCH 0/5] irqchip/gic-v4.1: Cleanup and fixes for GICv4.1 Marc Zyngier
2020-02-05 12:46 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-05 12:46 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-06 6:22 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-06 6:22 ` Zenghui Yu
2020-02-06 6:22 ` Zenghui Yu
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=621f153637ccabb85ede10e2c495c38f@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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.