From: Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@redhat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@csr.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PCI: MSI interrupts masked using prohibited method
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:59:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080728115910.46f0669e@brian.englab.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080725165655.GC17093@parisc-linux.org>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:56:55 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 05:37:49PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> > The spec says that system software should enable MSI before setting
> > message address and data (PCI 3.0 section 6.8.3.1 MSI
> > configuration). The kernel doesn't do this.
>
> I think you meant "disable"? I can't find anything in 6.8.3.1 of 3.0
> that refers to this.
>
> > I really don't think we should be enabling/disabling MSI while
> > interrupts might be being generated. There are cases where
> > interrupts will be lost. Consider PCIe where we might end up with
> > a situation where MSI is disabled and then enabled sufficiently
> > quickly that no periodic line interrupt message is sent by the
> > device.
>
> I don't think there's a difference here between PCIe and conventional
> PCI. A device raising a line based interrupt is perfectly equivalent
> to a device sending an INTx message.
>
> > The message address and data should only be modified while the
> > vector is masked (to avoid the aforementioned 'tearing'). This
> > means that setting IRQ affinity cannot be done on devices without
> > per-vector mask bits. I don't think this is a problem.
>
> I agree. I think it's fine to have this limitation.
I can imagine this being a problem e.g. for people wanting to isolate
selected CPUs from interrupts for realtime tasks.
> > In vague psuedo-code, set_affinity() should be something like this:
> >
> > int did_mask = msi_mask_vector();
> > if (!did_mask) {
> > return -ENOTSUPP;
> > }
> > /* fiddle with address and mask now */
> > msi_unmask_vector();
>
> Yes, something like that.
next parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-28 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4860D09D.4060801@csr.com>
[not found] ` <48807166.9010006@csr.com>
[not found] ` <20080722155629.1160635e@brian.englab.brq.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <200807221052.26879.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
[not found] ` <20080725152918.43bf3100@brian.englab.brq.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <20080725134252.GG6701@parisc-linux.org>
[not found] ` <20080725155329.79821436@brian.englab.brq.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <488A015D.4040107@csr.com>
[not found] ` <20080725165655.GC17093@parisc-linux.org>
2008-07-28 9:59 ` Michal Schmidt [this message]
2008-07-28 22:04 ` PCI: MSI interrupts masked using prohibited method Jesse Barnes
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=20080728115910.46f0669e@brian.englab.brq.redhat.com \
--to=mschmidt@redhat.com \
--cc=david.vrabel@csr.com \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
/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).