From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/9] irqchip/gic-v2, v3: Implement irq_chip->irq_retrigger()
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:23:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200824102317.1038259-2-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200824102317.1038259-1-maz@kernel.org>
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
While digging around IRQCHIP_EOI_IF_HANDLED and irq/resend.c, it has come
to my attention that the IRQ resend situation seems a bit precarious for
the GIC(s).
When marking an IRQ with IRQS_PENDING, handle_fasteoi_irq() will bail out
and issue an irq_eoi(). Should the IRQ in question be re-enabled,
check_irq_resend() will trigger a SW resend, which will go through the flow
handler again and issue *another* irq_eoi() on the *same* IRQ
activation. This is something the GIC spec clearly describes as a bad idea:
any EOI must match a previous ACK.
Implement irq_chip.irq_retrigger() for the GIC chips by setting the GIC
pending bit of the relevant IRQ. After being called by check_irq_resend(),
this will eventually trigger a *new* interrupt which we will handle as usual.
Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200730170321.31228-2-valentin.schneider@arm.com
---
drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 7 +++++++
drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
index 324f280ff606..b507bc7c5cda 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
@@ -1207,6 +1207,11 @@ static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask_val,
#define gic_smp_init() do { } while(0)
#endif
+static int gic_retrigger(struct irq_data *data)
+{
+ return !gic_irq_set_irqchip_state(data, IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING, true);
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_PM
static int gic_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
unsigned long cmd, void *v)
@@ -1242,6 +1247,7 @@ static struct irq_chip gic_chip = {
.irq_eoi = gic_eoi_irq,
.irq_set_type = gic_set_type,
.irq_set_affinity = gic_set_affinity,
+ .irq_retrigger = gic_retrigger,
.irq_get_irqchip_state = gic_irq_get_irqchip_state,
.irq_set_irqchip_state = gic_irq_set_irqchip_state,
.irq_nmi_setup = gic_irq_nmi_setup,
@@ -1258,6 +1264,7 @@ static struct irq_chip gic_eoimode1_chip = {
.irq_eoi = gic_eoimode1_eoi_irq,
.irq_set_type = gic_set_type,
.irq_set_affinity = gic_set_affinity,
+ .irq_retrigger = gic_retrigger,
.irq_get_irqchip_state = gic_irq_get_irqchip_state,
.irq_set_irqchip_state = gic_irq_set_irqchip_state,
.irq_set_vcpu_affinity = gic_irq_set_vcpu_affinity,
diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
index a27ba2cc1dce..e92ee2b6d7a5 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
@@ -347,6 +347,11 @@ static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask_val,
}
#endif
+static int gic_retrigger(struct irq_data *data)
+{
+ return !gic_irq_set_irqchip_state(data, IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING, true);
+}
+
static void __exception_irq_entry gic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
u32 irqstat, irqnr;
@@ -417,6 +422,7 @@ static const struct irq_chip gic_chip = {
.irq_unmask = gic_unmask_irq,
.irq_eoi = gic_eoi_irq,
.irq_set_type = gic_set_type,
+ .irq_retrigger = gic_retrigger,
.irq_get_irqchip_state = gic_irq_get_irqchip_state,
.irq_set_irqchip_state = gic_irq_set_irqchip_state,
.flags = IRQCHIP_SET_TYPE_MASKED |
--
2.27.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-24 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-24 10:23 [PATCH 0/9] irqchip/gic: generalize use of HW-based retriggering Marc Zyngier
2020-08-24 10:23 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2020-08-24 10:23 ` [PATCH 2/9] irqchip/git-v3-its: Implement irq_retrigger callback for device-triggered LPIs Marc Zyngier
2020-08-24 10:23 ` [PATCH 3/9] PCI/MSI: Provide default retrigger callback Marc Zyngier
2020-08-25 19:44 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-24 10:23 ` [PATCH 4/9] platform-msi: " Marc Zyngier
2020-08-24 10:23 ` [PATCH 5/9] fsl-msi: " Marc Zyngier
2020-08-26 11:16 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-26 16:37 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-08-26 17:52 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-08-24 10:23 ` [PATCH 6/9] irqchip/mbigen: Use hierarchy retrigger helper Marc Zyngier
2020-08-24 10:23 ` [PATCH 7/9] irqchip/mvebu-icu: " Marc Zyngier
2020-08-24 10:23 ` [PATCH 8/9] irqchip/mvebu-sei: " Marc Zyngier
2020-08-24 10:23 ` [PATCH 9/9] irqchip/gic-v2, v3: Prevent SW resends entirely Marc Zyngier
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=20200824102317.1038259-2-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=gregory.clement@bootlin.com \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.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