From: "Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim)" <hyonkim@cisco.com>
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" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add mask and unmask interrupt APIs
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 11:06:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB183961D144E1D737D03D7CCABFC90@MWHPR11MB1839.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR18MB2424A0890EE3A3F8BDA899BFC8C90@BYAPR18MB2424.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
> -----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.
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.
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-17 11:06 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) [this message]
2019-07-17 11:16 ` Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
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=MWHPR11MB183961D144E1D737D03D7CCABFC90@MWHPR11MB1839.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=hyonkim@cisco.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.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).