From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70458C433F5 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 00:36:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KzCX653WMz3cHX for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 10:36:54 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=E69tp0Oc; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.helo=mga12.intel.com (client-ip=192.55.52.136; helo=mga12.intel.com; envelope-from=ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=Intel header.b=E69tp0Oc; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KzCWP2C93z2yhD for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 10:36:17 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1652315777; x=1683851777; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=dLBHzXs/7dIe56Ck53G1U2+PedWXR/Xhh4qftWNzQyo=; b=E69tp0OcOSG7fBXXdfEiho7yjdGQACNLoa3KN5A/+qSt0WKsfONoNmje I4VLlMuHoRNgshT0J/RH7SRW3VJEyWe60Cz+Y5a0WluzElfSVpNHEB17X cdKBkVDb3SII/wvp0kp/SdfaYG+GF+x4561mQQKRLsfyPi075l4zgx8Jp OQ1/azq6NMZtwV5CXllMEUG9bgE5lTmoM16+y6fsZ1sel1zTVhmHoszjV ArZOVweU8gNkZFaHtxR4s1iSkd0dD4umnr4516eLUqNZgBjg78sIXlLw4 Pa7H2aCYssgI+h+JVf42vHDVp9GwKGZYT5coLEtN+L0/CjHz3oyiDRaLF w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10344"; a="249744713" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,218,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="249744713" Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 May 2022 17:35:15 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,218,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="711708630" Received: from ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com ([172.25.110.23]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2022 17:35:14 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 17:38:45 -0700 From: Ricardo Neri To: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/29] x86/apic/msi: Set the delivery mode individually for each IRQ Message-ID: <20220512003845.GC16273@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com> References: <20220506000008.30892-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <20220506000008.30892-4-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <8735hmh1f5.ffs@tglx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8735hmh1f5.ffs@tglx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Ravi V. Shankar" , Andi Kleen , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Joerg Roedel , x86@kernel.org, Ricardo Neri , Stephane Eranian , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, Tony Luck , Nicholas Piggin , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Andrew Morton , David Woodhouse , Lu Baolu Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 10:05:34PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, May 05 2022 at 16:59, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > There are no restrictions in hardware to set MSI messages with its > > own delivery mode. > > "messages with its own" ? Plural/singular confusion. Yes, this is not correct. It should have read "messages with their own..." > > > Use the mode specified in the provided IRQ hardware > > configuration data. Since most of the IRQs are configured to use the > > delivery mode of the APIC driver in use (set in all of them to > > APIC_DELIVERY_MODE_FIXED), the only functional changes are where > > IRQs are configured to use a specific delivery mode. > > This does not parse. There are no functional changes due to this patch > and there is no point talking about functional changes in subsequent > patches here. I will remove this. > > > Changing the utility function __irq_msi_compose_msg() takes care of > > implementing the change in the in the local APIC, PCI-MSI, and DMAR-MSI > > in the in the Sorry! This is not correct. > > > irq_chips. > > > > The IO-APIC irq_chip configures the entries in the interrupt redirection > > table using the delivery mode specified in the corresponding MSI message. > > Since the MSI message is composed by a higher irq_chip in the hierarchy, > > it does not need to be updated. > > The point is that updating __irq_msi_compose_msg() covers _all_ MSI > consumers including IO-APIC. > > I had to read that changelog 3 times to make sense of it. Something like > this perhaps: > > "x86/apic/msi: Use the delivery mode from irq_cfg for message composition > > irq_cfg provides a delivery mode for each interrupt. Use it instead > of the hardcoded APIC_DELIVERY_MODE_FIXED. This allows to compose > messages for NMI delivery mode which is required to implement a HPET > based NMI watchdog. > > No functional change as the default delivery mode is set to > APIC_DELIVERY_MODE_FIXED." Thank you for your help on the changelog! I will take your suggestion. BR, Ricardo > > Thanks, > > tglx