From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Nanyong Sun <sunnanyong@huawei.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] irqchip/gic-v3: support SGI broadcast
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:02:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <864j4u3f7l.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOUHufbEadyAn0WVdJqYKkUjvMfGXXiLjaApjhaHKg93P8Rymg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 18:31:01 +0100,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 10:15 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:07:45 +0100,
> > Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marc,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:03 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 05:22:15 +0100,
> > > > Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -1407,6 +1418,13 @@ static void gic_ipi_send_mask(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask)
> > > > > */
> > > > > dsb(ishst);
> > > > >
> > > > > + cpumask_copy(&broadcast, cpu_present_mask);
> > > >
> > > > Why cpu_present_mask? I'd expect that cpu_online_mask should be the
> > > > correct mask to use -- we don't IPI offline CPUs, in general.
> > >
> > > This is exactly because "we don't IPI offline CPUs, in general",
> > > assuming "we" means the kernel, not GIC.
> > >
> > > My interpretation of what the GIC spec says ("0b1: Interrupts routed
> > > to all PEs in the system, excluding self") is that it broadcasts IPIs to
> > > "cpu_present_mask" (minus the local one). So if the kernel uses
> > > "cpu_online_mask" here, GIC would send IPIs to offline CPUs
> > > (cpu_present_mask ^ cpu_online_mask), which I don't know whether it's
> > > a defined behavior.
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
> > Offline CPUs are not known to the kernel.
>
> I assume it wouldn't matter to firmware either, correct? IOW, we
Firmware is on the secure side of the stack.
> wouldn't cause firmware any trouble by letting GIC send IPIs to
> (cpu_present_mask ^ cpu_online_mask), assuming those two masks can be
> different on arm64 when hotplug is enabled?
You can't send SGIs from non-secure to secure using ICC_SGI1R_EL1. You
would need to use ICC_ASGI1R_EL1, and have secure to allow such
brokenness via a configuration of GICR_NSACR. Linux doesn't use the
former, and no sane software touches the latter.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-29 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-21 4:22 [PATCH v1 0/6] mm/arm64: re-enable HVO Yu Zhao
2024-10-21 4:22 ` [PATCH v1 1/6] mm/hugetlb_vmemmap: batch update PTEs Yu Zhao
2024-10-21 4:22 ` [PATCH v1 2/6] mm/hugetlb_vmemmap: add arch-independent helpers Yu Zhao
2024-10-21 4:22 ` [PATCH v1 3/6] irqchip/gic-v3: support SGI broadcast Yu Zhao
2024-10-22 0:24 ` kernel test robot
2024-10-22 15:03 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-10-25 5:07 ` Yu Zhao
2024-10-25 16:14 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-10-25 17:31 ` Yu Zhao
2024-10-29 19:02 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2024-10-29 19:53 ` Yu Zhao
2024-10-21 4:22 ` [PATCH v1 4/6] arm64: broadcast IPIs to pause remote CPUs Yu Zhao
2024-10-22 16:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-10-28 22:11 ` Yu Zhao
2024-10-29 19:36 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-10-31 18:10 ` Yu Zhao
2024-10-21 4:22 ` [PATCH v1 5/6] arm64: pause remote CPUs to update vmemmap Yu Zhao
2024-10-21 4:22 ` [PATCH v1 6/6] arm64: select ARCH_WANT_OPTIMIZE_HUGETLB_VMEMMAP Yu Zhao
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=864j4u3f7l.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=sunnanyong@huawei.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzhao@google.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).