From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>, Marc Zygnier <maz@kernel.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Megha Dey <megha.dey@intel.com>, Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Allen Hubbe <allenbh@gmail.com>,
linux-ntb@googlegroups.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 21/32] NTB/msi: Convert to msi_on_each_desc()
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 16:00:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211202200017.GS4670@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wnkm6c77.ffs@tglx>
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 08:25:48PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Jason,
>
> On Thu, Dec 02 2021 at 09:55, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:01:42AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 01 2021 at 21:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Dec 01 2021 at 14:14, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >> > Which in turn is consistent all over the place and does not require any
> >> > special case for anything. Neither for interrupts nor for anything else.
> >>
> >> that said, feel free to tell me that I'm getting it all wrong.
> >>
> >> The reason I'm harping on this is that we are creating ABIs on several
> >> ends and we all know that getting that wrong is a major pain.
> >
> > I don't really like coupling the method to fetch IRQs with needing
> > special struct devices. Struct devices have a sysfs presence and it is
> > not always appropriate to create sysfs stuff just to allocate some
> > IRQs.
> >
> > A queue is simply not a device, it doesn't make any sense. A queue is
> > more like a socket().
>
> Let's put the term 'device' for a bit please.
>
> > That said, we often have enough struct devices floating about to make
> > this work. Between netdev/ib_device/aux device/mdev we can use them to
> > do this.
> >
> > I think it is conceptual nonsense to attach an IMS IRQ domain to a
> > netdev or a cdev, but it will solve this problem.
>
> The IMS irqdomain is _NOT_ part of the netdev or cdev or whatever. I
> explained that several times now.
>
> We seem to have a serious problem of terminology and the understanding
> of topology which is why we continue to talk past each other forever.
I think I understand and agree with everything you said below.
The point we diverge is where to put the vector storage:
> Of course we can store them in pci_dev.dev.msi.data.store. Either with a
> dedicated xarray or by partitioning the xarray space. Both have their
> pro and cons.
This decision seems to drive the question of how many 'struct devices'
do we need, and where do we get them..
> But what I really struggle with is how this is further represented when
> the queues are allocated for VFIO, cdev, whatever usage.
Yes, this seems to be the primary question
> The fact that the irqdomain is instantiated by the device driver does
> not make it any different. As explained above it's just an
> implementation detail which makes it possible to handle the device
> specific message storage requirement in a sane way. The actual interrupt
> resources come still from the underlying irqdomains as for PCI/MSI.
Yes! This is not under debate
> Now I was looking for a generic representation of such a container and
> my initial reaction was to bind it to a struct device, which also makes
> it trivial to store these MSI descriptors in that struct device.
Right, I've been trying to argue around just this choice.
> I can understand your resistance against that to some extent, but I
> think we really have to come up with a proper abstract representation
> for these.
Ok
> Such a logical function would be the entity to hand out for VFIO or
> cdev.
What is a logical function, concretely?
Does it have struct device?
Can I instead suggest a name like 'message interrupt table' ?
Ie a device has two linearly indexed message interrupt tables - the
PCI SIG defined MSI/MSI-X one created by the PCI core and the IMS one
created by the driver.
Both start at 0 index and they have different irq_domains.
Instead of asking the driver to create a domain we ask the driver to
create a new 'message interrupt table'. The driver provides the
irq_chip to program the messages and the pci_device. The core code
manages the irq domain setup.
Using what you say below:
> If this is not split out, then every driver and wrapper has to come up
> with it's own representation of this instead of being able to do:
>
> request_irq(msi_get_virq(lfunc, idx=0), handler0, ...);
> request_irq(msi_get_virq(lfunc, idx=1), handler1, ...);
We could say:
msi_get_virq(device.pci_msi_table, index=0)
Is the 0th PCI SIG MSI vector
Something like:
ims_table = pci_create_msi_table(pci_dev, my_irq_chip,..)
msi_get_virq(ims_table, index=0)
Is the 0th IMS vector
Is it close to what you are thinking with lfunc?
Regards,
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-02 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 141+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-27 1:23 [patch 00/32] genirq/msi, PCI/MSI: Spring cleaning - Part 2 Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 01/32] genirq/msi: Move descriptor list to struct msi_device_data Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 12:19 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 02/32] genirq/msi: Add mutex for MSI list protection Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 03/32] genirq/msi: Provide msi_domain_alloc/free_irqs_descs_locked() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 04/32] genirq/msi: Provide a set of advanced MSI accessors and iterators Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-28 1:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-11-28 19:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-29 9:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-29 14:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-11-29 14:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 05/32] genirq/msi: Provide msi_alloc_msi_desc() and a simple allocator Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 06/32] genirq/msi: Provide domain flags to allocate/free MSI descriptors automatically Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 07/32] genirq/msi: Count the allocated MSI descriptors Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 12:19 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-27 19:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 19:45 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-28 11:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-28 19:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 08/32] PCI/MSI: Protect MSI operations Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 09/32] PCI/MSI: Use msi_add_msi_desc() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 10/32] PCI/MSI: Let core code free MSI descriptors Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 11/32] PCI/MSI: Use msi_on_each_desc() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 12/32] x86/pci/xen: Use msi_for_each_desc() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 13/32] xen/pcifront: Rework MSI handling Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 14/32] s390/pci: Rework MSI descriptor walk Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-29 10:31 ` Niklas Schnelle
2021-11-29 13:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 15/32] powerpc/4xx/hsta: Rework MSI handling Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 16/32] powerpc/cell/axon_msi: Convert to msi_on_each_desc() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 17/32] powerpc/pasemi/msi: Convert to msi_on_each_dec() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 18/32] powerpc/fsl_msi: Use msi_for_each_desc() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:23 ` [patch 19/32] powerpc/mpic_u3msi: Use msi_for_each-desc() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 20/32] PCI: hv: Rework MSI handling Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 21/32] NTB/msi: Convert to msi_on_each_desc() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-29 18:21 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-11-29 20:51 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-29 22:27 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-11-29 22:50 ` Dave Jiang
2021-11-29 23:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-11-29 23:52 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-11-30 0:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-11-30 0:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-30 19:21 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-11-30 19:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-30 20:14 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-11-30 20:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-11-30 21:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 0:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-01 10:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 13:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-01 17:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 18:14 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-01 18:46 ` Logan Gunthorpe
2021-12-01 20:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-02 0:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-02 13:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-02 14:23 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-12-02 14:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-02 19:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-02 20:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-12-02 22:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-03 0:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-03 15:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-03 16:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-04 14:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-05 14:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-06 14:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-06 15:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-06 17:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-06 20:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-06 21:06 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-06 22:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-06 14:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-06 15:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-09 6:26 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-09 9:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-09 12:17 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-09 15:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-10 7:37 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-09 5:41 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-09 5:47 ` Jason Wang
2021-12-01 16:28 ` Dave Jiang
2021-12-01 18:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 18:47 ` Dave Jiang
2021-12-01 20:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 21:21 ` Dave Jiang
2021-12-01 21:44 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 21:49 ` Dave Jiang
2021-12-01 22:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 22:53 ` Dave Jiang
2021-12-01 23:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-09 5:23 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-09 8:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-09 12:31 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-09 16:21 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-09 20:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-09 20:58 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-09 22:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-10 0:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-10 7:29 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-10 12:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-11 8:06 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-10 12:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-10 19:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-11 7:44 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-11 13:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-12 1:56 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-12 20:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-12 23:37 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-13 7:50 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-11 7:52 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-12 0:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-12 2:14 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-12 20:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-12 23:42 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-10 7:36 ` Tian, Kevin
2021-12-10 12:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-12 6:44 ` Mika Penttilä
2021-12-12 23:27 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-01 14:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 15:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-01 18:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-01 18:47 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-12-01 20:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 22/32] soc: ti: ti_sci_inta_msi: Rework MSI descriptor allocation Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 23/32] soc: ti: ti_sci_inta_msi: Remove ti_sci_inta_msi_domain_free_irqs() Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 24/32] bus: fsl-mc-msi: Simplify MSI descriptor handling Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 25/32] platform-msi: Let core code handle MSI descriptors Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 26/32] platform-msi: Simplify platform device MSI code Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 27/32] genirq/msi: Make interrupt allocation less convoluted Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 28/32] genirq/msi: Convert to new functions Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 29/32] genirq/msi: Mop up old interfaces Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 30/32] genirq/msi: Add abuse prevention comment to msi header Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 31/32] genirq/msi: Simplify sysfs handling Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 12:32 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-27 19:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-28 11:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-11-28 19:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 1:24 ` [patch 32/32] genirq/msi: Convert storage to xarray Thomas Gleixner
2021-11-27 12:33 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
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=20211202200017.GS4670@nvidia.com \
--to=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=allenbh@gmail.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jdmason@kudzu.us \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ntb@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=logang@deltatee.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=megha.dey@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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).