[Patch Part2 v3 15/24] x86, MSI: Use hierarchy irqdomain to manage MSI interrupts

Thomas Gleixner
2014-10-29T09:19:15Z

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 2014/10/29 5:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Jiang Liu wrote:
> >> +static int msi_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask,
> >> + bool force)
> >> +{
> >> + struct irq_data *parent = data->parent_data;
> >> + int ret;
> >>
> >> - msg.data &= ~MSI_DATA_VECTOR_MASK;
> >> - msg.data |= MSI_DATA_VECTOR(cfg->vector);
> >> - msg.address_lo &= ~MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID_MASK;
> >> - msg.address_lo |= MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID(dest);
> >> + ret = parent->chip->irq_set_affinity(parent, mask, force);
> >> + /* No need to reprogram MSI registers if interrupt is remapped */
> >> + if (ret >= 0 && !msi_irq_remapped(data)) {
> >> + struct msi_msg msg;
> >>
> >> - __write_msi_msg(data->msi_desc, &msg);
> >> + __get_cached_msi_msg(data->msi_desc, &msg);
> >> + msi_update_msg(&msg, data);
> >> + __write_msi_msg(data->msi_desc, &msg);
> >> + }
> >
> > I'm not too happy about the msi_irq_remapped() conditional here. It
> > violates the whole concept of domain stacking somewhat.
> >
> > A better separation would be to add a callback to the irq chip:
> >
> > void (*irq_write_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_desc *msi_desc, bool cached);
> >
> > and change this code to:
> >
> > if (ret >= 0)
> > parent->chip->irq_write_msi_msg(parent, data->msi-desc, true);
> >
> Hi Thomas,
> Thanks for your great suggestion and I have worked out a draft
> patch to achieve what you want:)
> I have made following changes to irq core to get rid of remapped
> irq logic from msi.c:
> 1) Add IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE in addition to IRQ_SET_MASK_OK and
> IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_NOCOPY. IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE is the same as
> IRQ_SET_MASK_OK for irq core and indicates to stacked irqchip that
> parent irqchips have done all work and skip any handling in descendant
> irqchips.
> 2) Add int (*irq_compose_msi_msg)(struct irq_data *data, struct msi_msg
> *msg) into struct irq_chip. I'm still hesitating to return void or int
> here. By returning void, irq_chip_compose_msi_msg() will be simpler,
> but it loses flexibility.

void should be sufficient. If the chip advertises this function it
better can provide a proper msi msg :)

> With above changes to core, we could remove all knowledge of irq
> remapping from msi.c and the irq remapping interfaces get simpler too.
> Please refer to following patch for details. The patch passes basic
> booting tests with irq remapping enabled. If it's OK, I will fold
> it into the patch set.

Yes. That looks reasonable.

> IOAPIC runs into the same situation, but I need some more time
> to find a solution:)

I'm sure you will!

Thanks,

tglx