Re: [PATCH 10/13] x86/irq: Limit IOAPIC and MSI domains' affinity without IR

From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, x86@kernel.org
Cc: iommu <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] x86/irq: Limit IOAPIC and MSI domains' affinity without IR
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:08:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <F9476D19-3D08-4CE6-A535-6C1D2E9BA88D@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874kn65h0r.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

On 7 October 2020 13:59:00 BST, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 07 2020 at 08:48, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Tue, 2020-10-06 at 23:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 05 2020 at 16:28, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> This is the case I called out in the cover letter:
>>
>>     This patch series implements a per-domain "maximum affinity" set
>and
>>     uses it for the non-remapped IOAPIC and MSI domains on x86. As
>well as
>>     allowing more CPUs to be used without interrupt remapping, this
>also
>>     fixes the case where some IOAPICs or PCI devices aren't actually
>in
>>     scope of any active IOMMU and are operating without remapping.
>>
>> To fix *that* case, we really do need the whole series giving us per-
>> domain restricted affinity, and to use it for those MSIs/IOAPICs that
>> the IRQ remapping doesn't cover.
>
>Which do not exist today.

Sure. But at patch 10/13 into this particular patch series, it *does* exist.

(Ignoring, for the moment, that I'm about to rewrite half the preceding patches to take a different approach)

>>> >  	ip->irqdomain->parent = parent;
>>> > +	if (parent == x86_vector_domain)
>>> > +		irq_domain_set_affinity(ip->irqdomain, &x86_non_ir_cpumask);
>>> 
>>> OMG
>>
>> This IOAPIC function may or may not be behind remapping.
>
>>> >  		d->flags |= IRQ_DOMAIN_MSI_NOMASK_QUIRK;
>>> > +		irq_domain_set_affinity(d, &x86_non_ir_cpumask);
>>> 
>>> So here it's unconditional
>>
>> Yes, this code is only for the non-remapped case and there's a
>separate
>> arch_create_remap_msi_irq_domain() function a few lines further down
>> which creates the IR-PCI-MSI IRQ domain. So no need for a condition
>> here.
>>
>>> > +	if (parent == x86_vector_domain)
>>> > +		irq_domain_set_affinity(d, &x86_non_ir_cpumask);
>>> 
>>> And here we need a condition again. Completely obvious and
>reviewable - NOT.
>>
>> And HPET may or may not be behind remapping so again needs the
>> condition. I had figured that part was fairly obvious but can note it
>> in the commit comment.
>
>And all of this is completely wrong to begin with.
>
>The information has to property of the relevant irq domains and the
>hierarchy allows you nicely to retrieve it from there instead of
>sprinkling this all over the place.

No. This is not a property of the parent domain per se. Especially if you're thinking that we could inherit the affinity mask from the parent, then twice no.

This is a property of the MSI domain itself, and how many bits of destination ID the hardware at *this* level can interpret and pass on to the parent domain.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.