DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
To: "Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)" <hyonkim@cisco.com>,
	Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>,
	David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	"Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Cc: "John Daley (johndale)" <johndale@cisco.com>,
	Shahed Shaikh <shshaikh@marvell.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add mask and unmask interrupt APIs
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 11:16:52 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <BYAPR18MB2424874BA27AF9C19F51635EC8C90@BYAPR18MB2424.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR11MB183961D144E1D737D03D7CCABFC90@MWHPR11MB1839.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim) <hyonkim@cisco.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 4:36 PM
> To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
> Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; David Marchand
> <david.marchand@redhat.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Bruce
> Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> Cc: John Daley (johndale) <johndale@cisco.com>; Shahed Shaikh
> <shshaikh@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add mask and unmask interrupt APIs
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 7:44 PM
> > To: Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim) <hyonkim@cisco.com>; Nithin Kumar
> > Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; David Marchand
> > <david.marchand@redhat.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas@monjalon.net>;
> > Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Bruce Richardson
> > <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > Cc: John Daley (johndale) <johndale@cisco.com>; Shahed Shaikh
> > <shshaikh@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add mask and unmask interrupt
> > APIs
> >
> > > > I think, it vary from the perspective of IRQ Chip(or controller)
> > > > vs NIC
> > > > register(Source) PoV.
> > > > Since the API starts from rte_intr_* it is more of controller so
> > > > _ack_ make sense Other reason for ack:
> > > > 1) It will enforce that it needs to be called form ISR
> > > > 2) It would be have been really correct to unmask if
> > > > VFIO+MSIx+Linux supports it
> > > > 3) if it is ack, no need to add unmask counterpart, the _mask_ API
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just curious, what you mean by irq controller? Ack/mask/unmask PIOs
> > > all
> > go
> >
> > Programmable Interrupt Controller. Like Intel 8259A, GIC from ARM etc
> > The drivers in linux/drivers/irqchip/
> >
> > > to the NIC. It is the NIC that asserts/de-asserts irq..
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Besides the name, are we agreeing that we want these?
> > > > > - Unmask if INTx
> > > >
> > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > > - Nothing if MSI/MSI-X
> > > > Yes for MSI over VFIO
> > > > No for MSI over UIO/igb_uio
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess I was not clear. For MSI/MSI-X, we do not want to do
> > > mask/unmask regardless of vfio-pci/igb_uio.  Below is my comment
> > > about linux/windows/freebsd from an earlier email. Do you disagree?
> > > I am sure there are plenty of kernel NIC driver guys here. Please
> > > correct me if I am mistaken...
> >
> >
> > For some reason, igb_uio kernel driver mask the interrupt for MSIx.
> > We need to ack or unmask if needs to work with MSIX + IGB_UIO.
> >
> > See
> > pci_uio_alloc_resource()
> >         if (dev->kdrv == RTE_KDRV_IGB_UIO)
> >                 dev->intr_handle.type = RTE_INTR_HANDLE_UIO;
> >         else {
> >                 dev->intr_handle.type = RTE_INTR_HANDLE_UIO_INTX;
> >
> > igbuio_pci_irqcontrol() for masking in kernel.
> >
> 
> igb_uio does not auto-mask MSI/MSI-X.

I have not tested igbuio as we don't specific NIC + IGB_UIO platform.

The observation based on following code. see code under HAVE_PCI_MSI_MASK_IRQ

static int
igbuio_pci_irqcontrol(struct uio_info *info, s32 irq_state)
{
        struct rte_uio_pci_dev *udev = info->priv;
        struct pci_dev *pdev = udev->pdev;

#ifdef HAVE_PCI_MSI_MASK_IRQ
        struct irq_data *irq = irq_get_irq_data(udev->info.irq);
#endif

        pci_cfg_access_lock(pdev);

        if (udev->mode == RTE_INTR_MODE_MSIX || udev->mode == RTE_INTR_MODE_MSI) {
#ifdef HAVE_PCI_MSI_MASK_IRQ
                if (irq_state == 1)
                        pci_msi_unmask_irq(irq);
                else
                        pci_msi_mask_irq(irq);
#else
                igbuio_mask_irq(pdev, udev->mode, irq_state);
#endif
        }

        if (udev->mode == RTE_INTR_MODE_LEGACY)
                pci_intx(pdev, !!irq_state);

        pci_cfg_access_unlock(pdev);

        return 0;
}

> 
> static irqreturn_t
> igbuio_pci_irqhandler(int irq, void *dev_id) {
>         struct rte_uio_pci_dev *udev = (struct rte_uio_pci_dev *)dev_id;
>         struct uio_info *info = &udev->info;
> 
>         /* Legacy mode need to mask in hardware */
>         if (udev->mode == RTE_INTR_MODE_LEGACY &&
>             !pci_check_and_mask_intx(udev->pdev))
>                 return IRQ_NONE;
> 
>         uio_event_notify(info);
> 
>         /* Message signal mode, no share IRQ and automasked */
>         return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
> 
> Also tested just now with igb_uio. The driver does not need to call
> rte_intr_enable(), and it keeps getting interrupts without any issues.

 If you are sure, we can make MSIX+IGB_UIO as NOP in rte_intr_ack()

> Am I missing something?
> 
> -Hyong
> 
> > So it is more of making inline with igb_uio kernel driver AND not
> > break The existing drivers which was using rte_intr_enable in ISR with
> > MSIX+IGB_UIO
> >
> > I do agree with that for edge trigged interrupt mask may not require
> > from kernel.
> > But I am not sure why it is added in igb_uio kernel driver. May  be it
> > is just legacy.
> > Anyway this wont change schematics, when igb_uio kenrel fixed then the
> > counter Part can be changed in rte_intr_ack(). Ie. it is transparent
> > to drivers.
> >
> > >
> > > > I don't  have very strong opinion unmask vs ack. I prefer to have
> > > > ack due the reasons stated above.
> > > > If you really have strong opinion on using unmask, we will stick
> > > > with that to make forward progress.
> > > > Let us know.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have no strong opinion either.
> >
> > OK. Lets stick with rte_intr_ack().
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks..
> > > -Hyong


  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-17 11:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-15 16:50 [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] vfio: avoid re-installing irq handler Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-07-16  5:58 ` Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)
2019-07-16  6:47   ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-07-16  7:49     ` Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)
2019-07-16  9:56       ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-07-16  6:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH] eal: add mask and unmask interrupt apis Nithin Dabilpuram
2019-07-16  7:01 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v2] " Nithin Dabilpuram
2019-07-16 16:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] vfio: revert change that does intr eventfd setup at probe Nithin Dabilpuram
2019-07-16 16:44   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add mask and unmask interrupt APIs Nithin Dabilpuram
2019-07-17  5:55     ` Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)
2019-07-17  6:14       ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-07-17  7:09         ` Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)
2019-07-17  8:03           ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-07-17  8:45             ` Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)
2019-07-17  9:20               ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-07-17  9:51                 ` Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)
2019-07-17 10:43                   ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
2019-07-17 11:06                     ` Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)
2019-07-17 11:16                       ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran [this message]
2019-07-17 12:04                         ` Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
2019-07-16 16:44   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] drivers/net: use unmask API in interrupt handlers Nithin Dabilpuram
2019-07-17  6:01     ` Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)
2019-07-17  7:47       ` Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
2019-07-16 20:06   ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 1/3] vfio: revert change that does intr eventfd setup at probe Stephen Hemminger

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=BYAPR18MB2424874BA27AF9C19F51635EC8C90@BYAPR18MB2424.namprd18.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=hyonkim@cisco.com \
    --cc=johndale@cisco.com \
    --cc=ndabilpuram@marvell.com \
    --cc=shshaikh@marvell.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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).