[PATCH V2 0/3] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: revert penalty calculation for SCI

[PATCH V2 0/3] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: revert penalty calculation for SCI

[Sinan Kaya]

Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the dynamic penalty behavior
will remain effective for IRQ >= 256.

By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
avoided if possible.

A couple of notes about the external APIs:
1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
penalties.
2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
registered by the interrupt subsystem.

The reverted changes were in the direction to remove these external API and
try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA, SCI as well as PCI
IRQS. This didn't work out well with the existing platforms.

Changes from V1 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/1/106):
* Commit message updates

Sinan Kaya (3):
  Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"
  ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
  Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
 drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH V2 0/3] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: revert penalty calculation for SCI

[Sinan Kaya]

Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the dynamic penalty behavior
will remain effective for IRQ >= 256.

By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
avoided if possible.

A couple of notes about the external APIs:
1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
penalties.
2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
registered by the interrupt subsystem.

The reverted changes were in the direction to remove these external API and
try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA, SCI as well as PCI
IRQS. This didn't work out well with the existing platforms.

Changes from V1 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/1/106):
* Commit message updates

Sinan Kaya (3):
  Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"
  ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
  Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
 drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
size to 16").

The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
to existing peripherals.

By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
avoided if possible.

A couple of notes about the external APIs:
1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
penalties.
2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
registered by the interrupt subsystem.

The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
didn't work out well with the existing platforms.

Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
effective for IRQ >= 256.

Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
  * enabled system.
  */
 
+#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
 #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
 
 #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
@@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
 #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
 #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
 
-static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
+static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
 	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
 	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
 	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
@@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
 	}
 
 	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
-		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
+		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
 
 	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
 	return penalty;
@@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
 
 			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
 				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
-					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
+					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
 							 possible[i]] +=
 					    penalty;
 			}
 
 		} else if (link->irq.active &&
-				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
-			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
+				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
+			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
 			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
 		}
 	}
@@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
 }
 
 /*
- * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
+ * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
  */
 static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
 {
@@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
 	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
 		int retval;
 		int irq;
-		int new_penalty;
 
 		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
 
 		if (!retval)
 			break;	/* no number found */
 
-		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
-		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
+		if (irq < 0)
+			continue;
+
+		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
 			continue;
 
 		if (used)
-			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
-					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
+			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
+				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
 		else
-			new_penalty = 0;
+			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
 
-		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
 		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
 			break;
 	}
@@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
  */
 void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
 {
-	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
-		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
-		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
+	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
+		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
+		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
 }
 
 bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
 {
-	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
+	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
 		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
 }
 
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
size to 16").

The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
to existing peripherals.

By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
avoided if possible.

A couple of notes about the external APIs:
1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
penalties.
2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
registered by the interrupt subsystem.

The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
didn't work out well with the existing platforms.

Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
effective for IRQ >= 256.

Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
  * enabled system.
  */
 
+#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
 #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
 
 #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
@@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
 #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
 #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
 
-static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
+static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
 	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
 	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
 	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
@@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
 	}
 
 	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
-		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
+		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
 
 	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
 	return penalty;
@@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
 
 			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
 				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
-					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
+					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
 							 possible[i]] +=
 					    penalty;
 			}
 
 		} else if (link->irq.active &&
-				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
-			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
+				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
+			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
 			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
 		}
 	}
@@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
 }
 
 /*
- * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
+ * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
  */
 static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
 {
@@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
 	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
 		int retval;
 		int irq;
-		int new_penalty;
 
 		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
 
 		if (!retval)
 			break;	/* no number found */
 
-		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
-		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
+		if (irq < 0)
+			continue;
+
+		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
 			continue;
 
 		if (used)
-			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
-					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
+			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
+				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
 		else
-			new_penalty = 0;
+			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
 
-		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
 		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
 			break;
 	}
@@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
  */
 void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
 {
-	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
-		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
-		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
+	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
+		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
+		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
 }
 
 bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
 {
-	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
+	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
 		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
 }
 
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH V2 2/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts

[Sinan Kaya]

The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed size penalty
array for both PCI and IRQ interrupts.

We need to add the PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts too if the link is
in use and matches our ISA IRQ number.

Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index f3792f4..06c2a11 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -620,6 +620,10 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
 			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
 		return -ENODEV;
 	} else {
+		if (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
+			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
+				PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+
 		printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
 		       acpi_device_name(link->device),
 		       acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH V2 2/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts

[Sinan Kaya]

The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed size penalty
array for both PCI and IRQ interrupts.

We need to add the PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts too if the link is
in use and matches our ISA IRQ number.

Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index f3792f4..06c2a11 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -620,6 +620,10 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
 			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
 		return -ENODEV;
 	} else {
+		if (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
+			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
+				PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+
 		printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
 		       acpi_device_name(link->device),
 		       acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH V2 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

[Sinan Kaya]

The SCI function was removed in two steps (first refactor and then remove).
This patch does the revert in one step.

The commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements")
refactored the original code so that SCI penalty is calculated dynamically
by the time get_penalty function is called. This patch does a partial
revert for the SCI functionality only.

The commit 9e5ed6d1fb87 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function") is
for the removal of the function. SCI penalty API was replaced by the
runtime penalty calculation based on the value of
acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt.

The IRQ type does not get updated at the right time for some platforms and
results in incorrect penalty assignment for PCI IRQs as
irq_get_trigger_type returns the wrong type.

The register_gsi function delivers the IRQ found in the ACPI table to
the interrupt controller driver.  Penalties are calculated before a
link object is enabled to find out which interrupt has the least number
of users. By the time penalties are calculated, the IRQ is not registered
yet and the API returns the wrong type.

Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/283
Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
 drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 34 ++++++++++++++--------------------
 include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
index 90d84c3..0ffd26e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
@@ -453,6 +453,7 @@ static void __init acpi_sci_ioapic_setup(u8 bus_irq, u16 polarity, u16 trigger,
 		polarity = acpi_sci_flags & ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_MASK;
 
 	mp_override_legacy_irq(bus_irq, polarity, trigger, gsi);
+	acpi_penalize_sci_irq(bus_irq, trigger, polarity);
 
 	/*
 	 * stash over-ride to indicate we've been here
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index 06c2a11..6a2af19 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -495,27 +495,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq)
 
 static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
 {
-	int penalty = 0;
-
-	/*
-	* Penalize IRQ used by ACPI SCI. If ACPI SCI pin attributes conflict
-	* with PCI IRQ attributes, mark ACPI SCI as ISA_ALWAYS so it won't be
-	* use for PCI IRQs.
-	*/
-	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
-		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
-
-		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
-			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
-		else
-			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
-	}
-
-	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
-		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
+	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
+		return acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
 
-	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
-	return penalty;
+	return acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
 }
 
 int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
@@ -886,6 +869,17 @@ bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
 		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
 }
 
+void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
+{
+	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
+		if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
+		    polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
+			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
+		else
+			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+	}
+}
+
 /*
  * Over-ride default table to reserve additional IRQs for use by ISA
  * e.g. acpi_irq_isa=5
diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
index 4d8452c..85ac7d5 100644
--- a/include/linux/acpi.h
+++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
@@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ struct pci_dev;
 int acpi_pci_irq_enable (struct pci_dev *dev);
 void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active);
 bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq);
+void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity);
 void acpi_pci_irq_disable (struct pci_dev *dev);
 
 extern int ec_read(u8 addr, u8 *val);
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH V2 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

[Sinan Kaya]

The SCI function was removed in two steps (first refactor and then remove).
This patch does the revert in one step.

The commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements")
refactored the original code so that SCI penalty is calculated dynamically
by the time get_penalty function is called. This patch does a partial
revert for the SCI functionality only.

The commit 9e5ed6d1fb87 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function") is
for the removal of the function. SCI penalty API was replaced by the
runtime penalty calculation based on the value of
acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt.

The IRQ type does not get updated at the right time for some platforms and
results in incorrect penalty assignment for PCI IRQs as
irq_get_trigger_type returns the wrong type.

The register_gsi function delivers the IRQ found in the ACPI table to
the interrupt controller driver.  Penalties are calculated before a
link object is enabled to find out which interrupt has the least number
of users. By the time penalties are calculated, the IRQ is not registered
yet and the API returns the wrong type.

Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/283
Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
 drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 34 ++++++++++++++--------------------
 include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
index 90d84c3..0ffd26e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
@@ -453,6 +453,7 @@ static void __init acpi_sci_ioapic_setup(u8 bus_irq, u16 polarity, u16 trigger,
 		polarity = acpi_sci_flags & ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_MASK;
 
 	mp_override_legacy_irq(bus_irq, polarity, trigger, gsi);
+	acpi_penalize_sci_irq(bus_irq, trigger, polarity);
 
 	/*
 	 * stash over-ride to indicate we've been here
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index 06c2a11..6a2af19 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -495,27 +495,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq)
 
 static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
 {
-	int penalty = 0;
-
-	/*
-	* Penalize IRQ used by ACPI SCI. If ACPI SCI pin attributes conflict
-	* with PCI IRQ attributes, mark ACPI SCI as ISA_ALWAYS so it won't be
-	* use for PCI IRQs.
-	*/
-	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
-		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
-
-		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
-			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
-		else
-			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
-	}
-
-	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
-		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
+	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
+		return acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
 
-	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
-	return penalty;
+	return acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
 }
 
 int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
@@ -886,6 +869,17 @@ bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
 		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
 }
 
+void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
+{
+	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
+		if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
+		    polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
+			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
+		else
+			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+	}
+}
+
 /*
  * Over-ride default table to reserve additional IRQs for use by ISA
  * e.g. acpi_irq_isa=5
diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
index 4d8452c..85ac7d5 100644
--- a/include/linux/acpi.h
+++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
@@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ struct pci_dev;
 int acpi_pci_irq_enable (struct pci_dev *dev);
 void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active);
 bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq);
+void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity);
 void acpi_pci_irq_disable (struct pci_dev *dev);
 
 extern int ec_read(u8 addr, u8 *val);
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:

> The SCI function was removed in two steps (first refactor and then remove).
> This patch does the revert in one step.
> 
> The commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements")
> refactored the original code so that SCI penalty is calculated dynamically
> by the time get_penalty function is called. This patch does a partial
> revert for the SCI functionality only.
> 
> The commit 9e5ed6d1fb87 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function") is
> for the removal of the function. SCI penalty API was replaced by the
> runtime penalty calculation based on the value of
> acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt.
> 
> The IRQ type does not get updated at the right time for some platforms and
> results in incorrect penalty assignment for PCI IRQs as
> irq_get_trigger_type returns the wrong type.
> 
> The register_gsi function delivers the IRQ found in the ACPI table to
> the interrupt controller driver.  Penalties are calculated before a
> link object is enabled to find out which interrupt has the least number
> of users. By the time penalties are calculated, the IRQ is not registered
> yet and the API returns the wrong type.
> 
> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/283
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>

Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

[PATCH V2 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Sinan Kaya wrote:

> The SCI function was removed in two steps (first refactor and then remove).
> This patch does the revert in one step.
> 
> The commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements")
> refactored the original code so that SCI penalty is calculated dynamically
> by the time get_penalty function is called. This patch does a partial
> revert for the SCI functionality only.
> 
> The commit 9e5ed6d1fb87 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function") is
> for the removal of the function. SCI penalty API was replaced by the
> runtime penalty calculation based on the value of
> acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt.
> 
> The IRQ type does not get updated at the right time for some platforms and
> results in incorrect penalty assignment for PCI IRQs as
> irq_get_trigger_type returns the wrong type.
> 
> The register_gsi function delivers the IRQ found in the ACPI table to
> the interrupt controller driver.  Penalties are calculated before a
> link object is enabled to find out which interrupt has the least number
> of users. By the time penalties are calculated, the IRQ is not registered
> yet and the API returns the wrong type.
> 
> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/283
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>

Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: revert penalty calculation for SCI

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, October 04, 2016 05:15:16 PM Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the dynamic penalty behavior
> will remain effective for IRQ >= 256.
> 
> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
> avoided if possible.
> 
> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
> penalties.
> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
> 
> The reverted changes were in the direction to remove these external API and
> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA, SCI as well as PCI
> IRQS. This didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
> 
> Changes from V1 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/1/106):
> * Commit message updates
> 
> Sinan Kaya (3):
>   Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"
>   ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
>   Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"
> 
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> 

I've queued up the series, but still waiting on Bjorn's response.

Thanks,
Rafael

[PATCH V2 0/3] ACPI,PCI,IRQ: revert penalty calculation for SCI

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, October 04, 2016 05:15:16 PM Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the dynamic penalty behavior
> will remain effective for IRQ >= 256.
> 
> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
> avoided if possible.
> 
> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
> penalties.
> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
> 
> The reverted changes were in the direction to remove these external API and
> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA, SCI as well as PCI
> IRQS. This didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
> 
> Changes from V1 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/1/106):
> * Commit message updates
> 
> Sinan Kaya (3):
>   Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"
>   ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts
>   Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"
> 
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> 

I've queued up the series, but still waiting on Bjorn's response.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:18PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
> resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
> acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed size penalty
> array for both PCI and IRQ interrupts.
> 
> We need to add the PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts too if the link is
> in use and matches our ISA IRQ number.
> 
> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index f3792f4..06c2a11 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -620,6 +620,10 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
>  			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	} else {
> +		if (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;

Nit: elsewhere you use ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty), so it'd be nice
to be consistent, e.g.,

  if (link->irq.active < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;

There are a couple other similar uses in acpi_irq_get_penalty() and
acpi_irq_penalty_init().

>  		printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
>  		       acpi_device_name(link->device),
>  		       acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH V2 2/3] ACPI, PCI IRQ: add PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:18PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The change introduced in commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce
> resource requirements") removed PCI_USING penalty from
> acpi_pci_link_allocate function as there is no longer a fixed size penalty
> array for both PCI and IRQ interrupts.
> 
> We need to add the PCI_USING penalty for ISA interrupts too if the link is
> in use and matches our ISA IRQ number.
> 
> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index f3792f4..06c2a11 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -620,6 +620,10 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
>  			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	} else {
> +		if (link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;

Nit: elsewhere you use ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty), so it'd be nice
to be consistent, e.g.,

  if (link->irq.active < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;

There are a couple other similar uses in acpi_irq_get_penalty() and
acpi_irq_penalty_init().

>  		printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
>  		       acpi_device_name(link->device),
>  		       acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

Hi Sinan,

I have to apologize because I haven't followed all the discussion and
now I'm trying to figure it out from the patches and changelogs.  But
I guess that's not all bad, because future interested folks *should*
be able to figure things out from that :)

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
> size to 16").
> 
> The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
> gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
> acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
> system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
> not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
> interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
> to existing peripherals.
> 
> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
> avoided if possible.
> 
> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
> penalties.

Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.

My guess is you're thinking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq() (added back
later in this series), which is called here, which is definitely
before ACPI objects are available:

  setup_arch
    acpi_boot_init
      acpi_process_madt
	acpi_parse_madt_ioapic_entries
	  acpi_table_parse_madt
	    acpi_parse_int_src_ovr
	      acpi_sci_ioapic_setup
	        acpi_penalize_sci_irq       # <---

> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
> 
> The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
> didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
> 
> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
> effective for IRQ >= 256.

IIRC, this all started because we needed more than 256 IRQs, but we
didn't know how to size a static table to be large enough without
being wasteful.

Prior to 5c5087a55390, we tracked penalties for IRQs 0-255.  After it,
we only tracked penalties for IRQs 0-15.  I think this patch basically
makes it so we track 0-255 again.

*This* patch only increases the range for pcibios_penalize_isa_irq()
(and command-line hints, but hopefully nobody cares about those).  A
subsequent patch increases it for SCI as well.

The name "ACPI_MAX_IRQS" is now slightly misleading (because we do
support more than 256 IRQs) and the 256 value is sort of an
unjustified magic number.  16 is explainable as the number of ISA
IRQs, but I don't know what 256 is based on (other than historical
practice, of course).  ACPI device IRQs can be much larger, and I
think the SCI IRQ can be, too (the FADT SCI_INT field is 16 bits).

Can you tie this back to the specific problem on the broken machine
somehow?  Do we need a penalty for an IRQ in the 16-255 range?

In a subsequent patch, I see something about the IRQ type not being
updated at the right time, but I can't quite connect the dots.

To be clear, I'm not asking for any changes in the patch; I'm just
trying to understand what's going on.

> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>   * enabled system.
>   */
>  
> +#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
>  #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
>  
>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
> @@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
>  
> -static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
> +static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
> @@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> -		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
> +		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
>  
>  	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
>  	return penalty;
> @@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
>  
>  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
>  				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> -					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> +					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
>  							 possible[i]] +=
>  					    penalty;
>  			}
>  
>  		} else if (link->irq.active &&
> -				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
> -			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> +				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
>  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> + * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
>   */
>  static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>  {
> @@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>  	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
>  		int retval;
>  		int irq;
> -		int new_penalty;
>  
>  		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
>  
>  		if (!retval)
>  			break;	/* no number found */
>  
> -		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
> -		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
> +		if (irq < 0)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
>  			continue;
>  
>  		if (used)
> -			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> -					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>  		else
> -			new_penalty = 0;
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
>  
> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
>  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
>  			break;
>  	}
> @@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>   */
>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
>  {
> -	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> -		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> +		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> +		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>  }
>  
>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>  {
> -	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
> +	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

Hi Sinan,

I have to apologize because I haven't followed all the discussion and
now I'm trying to figure it out from the patches and changelogs.  But
I guess that's not all bad, because future interested folks *should*
be able to figure things out from that :)

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
> size to 16").
> 
> The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
> gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
> acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
> system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
> not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
> interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
> to existing peripherals.
> 
> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
> avoided if possible.
> 
> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
> penalties.

Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.

My guess is you're thinking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq() (added back
later in this series), which is called here, which is definitely
before ACPI objects are available:

  setup_arch
    acpi_boot_init
      acpi_process_madt
	acpi_parse_madt_ioapic_entries
	  acpi_table_parse_madt
	    acpi_parse_int_src_ovr
	      acpi_sci_ioapic_setup
	        acpi_penalize_sci_irq       # <---

> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
> 
> The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
> didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
> 
> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
> effective for IRQ >= 256.

IIRC, this all started because we needed more than 256 IRQs, but we
didn't know how to size a static table to be large enough without
being wasteful.

Prior to 5c5087a55390, we tracked penalties for IRQs 0-255.  After it,
we only tracked penalties for IRQs 0-15.  I think this patch basically
makes it so we track 0-255 again.

*This* patch only increases the range for pcibios_penalize_isa_irq()
(and command-line hints, but hopefully nobody cares about those).  A
subsequent patch increases it for SCI as well.

The name "ACPI_MAX_IRQS" is now slightly misleading (because we do
support more than 256 IRQs) and the 256 value is sort of an
unjustified magic number.  16 is explainable as the number of ISA
IRQs, but I don't know what 256 is based on (other than historical
practice, of course).  ACPI device IRQs can be much larger, and I
think the SCI IRQ can be, too (the FADT SCI_INT field is 16 bits).

Can you tie this back to the specific problem on the broken machine
somehow?  Do we need a penalty for an IRQ in the 16-255 range?

In a subsequent patch, I see something about the IRQ type not being
updated at the right time, but I can't quite connect the dots.

To be clear, I'm not asking for any changes in the patch; I'm just
trying to understand what's going on.

> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>   * enabled system.
>   */
>  
> +#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
>  #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
>  
>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
> @@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
>  
> -static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
> +static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
> @@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> -		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
> +		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
>  
>  	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
>  	return penalty;
> @@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
>  
>  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
>  				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> -					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> +					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
>  							 possible[i]] +=
>  					    penalty;
>  			}
>  
>  		} else if (link->irq.active &&
> -				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
> -			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> +				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
>  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> + * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
>   */
>  static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>  {
> @@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>  	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
>  		int retval;
>  		int irq;
> -		int new_penalty;
>  
>  		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
>  
>  		if (!retval)
>  			break;	/* no number found */
>  
> -		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
> -		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
> +		if (irq < 0)
> +			continue;
> +
> +		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
>  			continue;
>  
>  		if (used)
> -			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> -					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>  		else
> -			new_penalty = 0;
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
>  
> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
>  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
>  			break;
>  	}
> @@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>   */
>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
>  {
> -	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> -		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> +		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> +		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>  }
>  
>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>  {
> -	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
> +	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

Hi Bjorn,

On 10/12/2016 6:13 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Hi Sinan,
> 
> I have to apologize because I haven't followed all the discussion and
> now I'm trying to figure it out from the patches and changelogs.  But
> I guess that's not all bad, because future interested folks *should*
> be able to figure things out from that :)

Sure, np. I figured you are busy with the new baseline. Then, I saw a
series of patches coming from you.

> 
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
>> size to 16").
>>
>> The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
>> gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
>> acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
>> system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
>> not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
>> interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
>> to existing peripherals.
>>
>> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
>> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
>> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
>> avoided if possible.
>>
>> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
>> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
>> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
>> penalties.
> 
> Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
> called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.

Correct, I was talking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq function here.

> 
> My guess is you're thinking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq() (added back
> later in this series), which is called here, which is definitely
> before ACPI objects are available:
> 
>   setup_arch
>     acpi_boot_init
>       acpi_process_madt
> 	acpi_parse_madt_ioapic_entries
> 	  acpi_table_parse_madt
> 	    acpi_parse_int_src_ovr
> 	      acpi_sci_ioapic_setup
> 	        acpi_penalize_sci_irq       # <---
> 
>> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
>> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
>> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
>> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
>>
>> The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
>> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
>> didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
>>
>> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
>> effective for IRQ >= 256.
> 
> IIRC, this all started because we needed more than 256 IRQs, but we
> didn't know how to size a static table to be large enough without
> being wasteful.

Correct. We only need 1024 for ARM/ARM64. But, we wanted to remove this
restriction altogether to be arch proof. One of my earlier proposal was
to just resize the array to 1024. I was asked if I was wasting resources
by resizing to 1024.

> 
> Prior to 5c5087a55390, we tracked penalties for IRQs 0-255.  After it,
> we only tracked penalties for IRQs 0-15.  I think this patch basically
> makes it so we track 0-255 again.

Yes, we went back to 256 interrupts after the revert. 

> 
> *This* patch only increases the range for pcibios_penalize_isa_irq()
> (and command-line hints, but hopefully nobody cares about those).  A
> subsequent patch increases it for SCI as well.
> 
> The name "ACPI_MAX_IRQS" is now slightly misleading (because we do
> support more than 256 IRQs) and the 256 value is sort of an
> unjustified magic number.  16 is explainable as the number of ISA
> IRQs, but I don't know what 256 is based on (other than historical
> practice, of course).  ACPI device IRQs can be much larger, and I
> think the SCI IRQ can be, too (the FADT SCI_INT field is 16 bits).
> 
> Can you tie this back to the specific problem on the broken machine
> somehow?  Do we need a penalty for an IRQ in the 16-255 range?

The problem on the broken machine was SCI IRQ and PCI IRQ happened to be
same. It was IRQ 11. When SCI IRQ heavily penalized IRQ 11 due to
wrong interrupt type detection, PCI IRQs no longer worked as this line
prohibits using the IRQ.


	if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
			    "Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
			    acpi_device_name(link->device),
			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
		return -ENODEV;
	} 


> 
> In a subsequent patch, I see something about the IRQ type not being
> updated at the right time, but I can't quite connect the dots.

The reason why PCI IRQ 11 didn't work is above. 

When we detected a problem with the SCI IRQ type, we were penalizing
the IRQ below.

static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) 
{
...
	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;

		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;	<---- here
		else
			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
	} 



> 
> To be clear, I'm not asking for any changes in the patch; I'm just
> trying to understand what's going on.

Sure, I hope this makes it clear now.

> 
>> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
>> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
>> Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>> index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>>   * enabled system.
>>   */
>>  
>> +#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
>>  #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
>>  
>>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
>> @@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
>>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
>>  
>> -static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
>> +static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
>>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
>>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
>>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
>> @@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
>> -		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
>> +		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
>>  
>>  	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
>>  	return penalty;
>> @@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
>>  
>>  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
>>  				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
>> -					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
>> +					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
>>  							 possible[i]] +=
>>  					    penalty;
>>  			}
>>  
>>  		} else if (link->irq.active &&
>> -				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
>> -			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
>> +				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
>> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
>>  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
>>  		}
>>  	}
>> @@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
>>  }
>>  
>>  /*
>> - * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
>> + * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
>>   */
>>  static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>>  {
>> @@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>>  	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
>>  		int retval;
>>  		int irq;
>> -		int new_penalty;
>>  
>>  		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
>>  
>>  		if (!retval)
>>  			break;	/* no number found */
>>  
>> -		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
>> -		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
>> +		if (irq < 0)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
>>  			continue;
>>  
>>  		if (used)
>> -			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
>> -					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
>> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>>  		else
>> -			new_penalty = 0;
>> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
>>  
>> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
>>  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
>>  			break;
>>  	}
>> @@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>>   */
>>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
>>  {
>> -	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
>> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
>> -		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
>> +		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
>> +		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>>  }
>>  
>>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>>  {
>> -	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
>> +	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
>>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>>  }
>>  
>> -- 
>> 1.9.1
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 


-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

Hi Bjorn,

On 10/12/2016 6:13 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Hi Sinan,
> 
> I have to apologize because I haven't followed all the discussion and
> now I'm trying to figure it out from the patches and changelogs.  But
> I guess that's not all bad, because future interested folks *should*
> be able to figure things out from that :)

Sure, np. I figured you are busy with the new baseline. Then, I saw a
series of patches coming from you.

> 
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
>> size to 16").
>>
>> The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
>> gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
>> acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
>> system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
>> not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
>> interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
>> to existing peripherals.
>>
>> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
>> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
>> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
>> avoided if possible.
>>
>> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
>> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
>> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
>> penalties.
> 
> Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
> called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.

Correct, I was talking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq function here.

> 
> My guess is you're thinking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq() (added back
> later in this series), which is called here, which is definitely
> before ACPI objects are available:
> 
>   setup_arch
>     acpi_boot_init
>       acpi_process_madt
> 	acpi_parse_madt_ioapic_entries
> 	  acpi_table_parse_madt
> 	    acpi_parse_int_src_ovr
> 	      acpi_sci_ioapic_setup
> 	        acpi_penalize_sci_irq       # <---
> 
>> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
>> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
>> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
>> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
>>
>> The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
>> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
>> didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
>>
>> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
>> effective for IRQ >= 256.
> 
> IIRC, this all started because we needed more than 256 IRQs, but we
> didn't know how to size a static table to be large enough without
> being wasteful.

Correct. We only need 1024 for ARM/ARM64. But, we wanted to remove this
restriction altogether to be arch proof. One of my earlier proposal was
to just resize the array to 1024. I was asked if I was wasting resources
by resizing to 1024.

> 
> Prior to 5c5087a55390, we tracked penalties for IRQs 0-255.  After it,
> we only tracked penalties for IRQs 0-15.  I think this patch basically
> makes it so we track 0-255 again.

Yes, we went back to 256 interrupts after the revert. 

> 
> *This* patch only increases the range for pcibios_penalize_isa_irq()
> (and command-line hints, but hopefully nobody cares about those).  A
> subsequent patch increases it for SCI as well.
> 
> The name "ACPI_MAX_IRQS" is now slightly misleading (because we do
> support more than 256 IRQs) and the 256 value is sort of an
> unjustified magic number.  16 is explainable as the number of ISA
> IRQs, but I don't know what 256 is based on (other than historical
> practice, of course).  ACPI device IRQs can be much larger, and I
> think the SCI IRQ can be, too (the FADT SCI_INT field is 16 bits).
> 
> Can you tie this back to the specific problem on the broken machine
> somehow?  Do we need a penalty for an IRQ in the 16-255 range?

The problem on the broken machine was SCI IRQ and PCI IRQ happened to be
same. It was IRQ 11. When SCI IRQ heavily penalized IRQ 11 due to
wrong interrupt type detection, PCI IRQs no longer worked as this line
prohibits using the IRQ.


	if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
			    "Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
			    acpi_device_name(link->device),
			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
		return -ENODEV;
	} 


> 
> In a subsequent patch, I see something about the IRQ type not being
> updated at the right time, but I can't quite connect the dots.

The reason why PCI IRQ 11 didn't work is above. 

When we detected a problem with the SCI IRQ type, we were penalizing
the IRQ below.

static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) 
{
...
	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;

		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;	<---- here
		else
			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
	} 



> 
> To be clear, I'm not asking for any changes in the patch; I'm just
> trying to understand what's going on.

Sure, I hope this makes it clear now.

> 
>> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
>> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
>> Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>> index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
>> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>>   * enabled system.
>>   */
>>  
>> +#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
>>  #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
>>  
>>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
>> @@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
>>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
>>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
>>  
>> -static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
>> +static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
>>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
>>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
>>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
>> @@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
>> -		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
>> +		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
>>  
>>  	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
>>  	return penalty;
>> @@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
>>  
>>  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
>>  				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
>> -					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
>> +					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
>>  							 possible[i]] +=
>>  					    penalty;
>>  			}
>>  
>>  		} else if (link->irq.active &&
>> -				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
>> -			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
>> +				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
>> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
>>  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
>>  		}
>>  	}
>> @@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
>>  }
>>  
>>  /*
>> - * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
>> + * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
>>   */
>>  static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>>  {
>> @@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>>  	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
>>  		int retval;
>>  		int irq;
>> -		int new_penalty;
>>  
>>  		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
>>  
>>  		if (!retval)
>>  			break;	/* no number found */
>>  
>> -		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
>> -		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
>> +		if (irq < 0)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
>>  			continue;
>>  
>>  		if (used)
>> -			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
>> -					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
>> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>>  		else
>> -			new_penalty = 0;
>> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
>>  
>> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
>>  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
>>  			break;
>>  	}
>> @@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>>   */
>>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
>>  {
>> -	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
>> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
>> -		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
>> +		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
>> +		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
>>  }
>>  
>>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>>  {
>> -	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
>> +	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
>>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>>  }
>>  
>> -- 
>> 1.9.1
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 


-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 10/12/2016 6:13 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Hi Sinan,
> > 
> > I have to apologize because I haven't followed all the discussion and
> > now I'm trying to figure it out from the patches and changelogs.  But
> > I guess that's not all bad, because future interested folks *should*
> > be able to figure things out from that :)
> 
> Sure, np. I figured you are busy with the new baseline. Then, I saw a
> series of patches coming from you.
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
> >> size to 16").
> >>
> >> The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
> >> gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
> >> acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
> >> system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
> >> not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
> >> interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
> >> to existing peripherals.
> >>
> >> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
> >> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
> >> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
> >> avoided if possible.
> >>
> >> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
> >> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
> >> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
> >> penalties.
> > 
> > Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
> > called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.
> 
> Correct, I was talking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq function here.
> 
> > 
> > My guess is you're thinking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq() (added back
> > later in this series), which is called here, which is definitely
> > before ACPI objects are available:
> > 
> >   setup_arch
> >     acpi_boot_init
> >       acpi_process_madt
> > 	acpi_parse_madt_ioapic_entries
> > 	  acpi_table_parse_madt
> > 	    acpi_parse_int_src_ovr
> > 	      acpi_sci_ioapic_setup
> > 	        acpi_penalize_sci_irq       # <---
> > 
> >> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
> >> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
> >> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
> >> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
> >>
> >> The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
> >> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
> >> didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
> >>
> >> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
> >> effective for IRQ >= 256.
> > 
> > IIRC, this all started because we needed more than 256 IRQs, but we
> > didn't know how to size a static table to be large enough without
> > being wasteful.
> 
> Correct. We only need 1024 for ARM/ARM64. But, we wanted to remove this
> restriction altogether to be arch proof. One of my earlier proposal was
> to just resize the array to 1024. I was asked if I was wasting resources
> by resizing to 1024.
> 
> > 
> > Prior to 5c5087a55390, we tracked penalties for IRQs 0-255.  After it,
> > we only tracked penalties for IRQs 0-15.  I think this patch basically
> > makes it so we track 0-255 again.
> 
> Yes, we went back to 256 interrupts after the revert. 
> 
> > 
> > *This* patch only increases the range for pcibios_penalize_isa_irq()
> > (and command-line hints, but hopefully nobody cares about those).  A
> > subsequent patch increases it for SCI as well.
> > 
> > The name "ACPI_MAX_IRQS" is now slightly misleading (because we do
> > support more than 256 IRQs) and the 256 value is sort of an
> > unjustified magic number.  16 is explainable as the number of ISA
> > IRQs, but I don't know what 256 is based on (other than historical
> > practice, of course).  ACPI device IRQs can be much larger, and I
> > think the SCI IRQ can be, too (the FADT SCI_INT field is 16 bits).
> > 
> > Can you tie this back to the specific problem on the broken machine
> > somehow?  Do we need a penalty for an IRQ in the 16-255 range?
> 
> The problem on the broken machine was SCI IRQ and PCI IRQ happened to be
> same. It was IRQ 11. When SCI IRQ heavily penalized IRQ 11 due to
> wrong interrupt type detection, PCI IRQs no longer worked as this line
> prohibits using the IRQ.
> 
> 
> 	if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
> 		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
> 			    "Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
> 			    acpi_device_name(link->device),
> 			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
> 		return -ENODEV;
> 	} 

It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
registered.

It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
what patch [3/3] does.

I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
between 16 and 255.

> > In a subsequent patch, I see something about the IRQ type not being
> > updated at the right time, but I can't quite connect the dots.
> 
> The reason why PCI IRQ 11 didn't work is above. 
> 
> When we detected a problem with the SCI IRQ type, we were penalizing
> the IRQ below.
> 
> static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) 
> {
> ...
> 	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
> 		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> 
> 		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
> 			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;	<---- here
> 		else
> 			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> 	} 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > To be clear, I'm not asking for any changes in the patch; I'm just
> > trying to understand what's going on.
> 
> Sure, I hope this makes it clear now.
> 
> > 
> >> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> >> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> >> Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
> >> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> >>   * enabled system.
> >>   */
> >>  
> >> +#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
> >>  #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
> >>  
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
> >> @@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
> >>  
> >> -static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
> >> +static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
> >> @@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >>  	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> >> -		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
> >> +		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
> >>  
> >>  	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> >>  	return penalty;
> >> @@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> >>  
> >>  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
> >>  				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> >> -					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> >> +					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> >>  							 possible[i]] +=
> >>  					    penalty;
> >>  			}
> >>  
> >>  		} else if (link->irq.active &&
> >> -				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
> >> -			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> >> +				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> >>  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
> >>  		}
> >>  	}
> >> @@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  /*
> >> - * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> >> + * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> >>   */
> >>  static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>  {
> >> @@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
> >>  		int retval;
> >>  		int irq;
> >> -		int new_penalty;
> >>  
> >>  		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
> >>  
> >>  		if (!retval)
> >>  			break;	/* no number found */
> >>  
> >> -		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
> >> -		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
> >> +		if (irq < 0)
> >> +			continue;
> >> +
> >> +		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> >>  			continue;
> >>  
> >>  		if (used)
> >> -			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> -					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> >>  		else
> >> -			new_penalty = 0;
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
> >>  
> >> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
> >>  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
> >>  			break;
> >>  	}
> >> @@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>   */
> >>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
> >>  {
> >> -	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
> >> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> -		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> >> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> >> +		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> +		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
> >>  {
> >> -	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
> >> +	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
> >>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -- 
> >> 1.9.1
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sinan Kaya
> Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 10/12/2016 6:13 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Hi Sinan,
> > 
> > I have to apologize because I haven't followed all the discussion and
> > now I'm trying to figure it out from the patches and changelogs.  But
> > I guess that's not all bad, because future interested folks *should*
> > be able to figure things out from that :)
> 
> Sure, np. I figured you are busy with the new baseline. Then, I saw a
> series of patches coming from you.
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
> >> size to 16").
> >>
> >> The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
> >> gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
> >> acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
> >> system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
> >> not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
> >> interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
> >> to existing peripherals.
> >>
> >> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
> >> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
> >> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
> >> avoided if possible.
> >>
> >> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
> >> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
> >> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
> >> penalties.
> > 
> > Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
> > called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.
> 
> Correct, I was talking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq function here.
> 
> > 
> > My guess is you're thinking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq() (added back
> > later in this series), which is called here, which is definitely
> > before ACPI objects are available:
> > 
> >   setup_arch
> >     acpi_boot_init
> >       acpi_process_madt
> > 	acpi_parse_madt_ioapic_entries
> > 	  acpi_table_parse_madt
> > 	    acpi_parse_int_src_ovr
> > 	      acpi_sci_ioapic_setup
> > 	        acpi_penalize_sci_irq       # <---
> > 
> >> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
> >> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
> >> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
> >> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
> >>
> >> The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
> >> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
> >> didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
> >>
> >> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
> >> effective for IRQ >= 256.
> > 
> > IIRC, this all started because we needed more than 256 IRQs, but we
> > didn't know how to size a static table to be large enough without
> > being wasteful.
> 
> Correct. We only need 1024 for ARM/ARM64. But, we wanted to remove this
> restriction altogether to be arch proof. One of my earlier proposal was
> to just resize the array to 1024. I was asked if I was wasting resources
> by resizing to 1024.
> 
> > 
> > Prior to 5c5087a55390, we tracked penalties for IRQs 0-255.  After it,
> > we only tracked penalties for IRQs 0-15.  I think this patch basically
> > makes it so we track 0-255 again.
> 
> Yes, we went back to 256 interrupts after the revert. 
> 
> > 
> > *This* patch only increases the range for pcibios_penalize_isa_irq()
> > (and command-line hints, but hopefully nobody cares about those).  A
> > subsequent patch increases it for SCI as well.
> > 
> > The name "ACPI_MAX_IRQS" is now slightly misleading (because we do
> > support more than 256 IRQs) and the 256 value is sort of an
> > unjustified magic number.  16 is explainable as the number of ISA
> > IRQs, but I don't know what 256 is based on (other than historical
> > practice, of course).  ACPI device IRQs can be much larger, and I
> > think the SCI IRQ can be, too (the FADT SCI_INT field is 16 bits).
> > 
> > Can you tie this back to the specific problem on the broken machine
> > somehow?  Do we need a penalty for an IRQ in the 16-255 range?
> 
> The problem on the broken machine was SCI IRQ and PCI IRQ happened to be
> same. It was IRQ 11. When SCI IRQ heavily penalized IRQ 11 due to
> wrong interrupt type detection, PCI IRQs no longer worked as this line
> prohibits using the IRQ.
> 
> 
> 	if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
> 		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
> 			    "Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
> 			    acpi_device_name(link->device),
> 			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
> 		return -ENODEV;
> 	} 

It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
registered.

It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
what patch [3/3] does.

I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
between 16 and 255.

> > In a subsequent patch, I see something about the IRQ type not being
> > updated at the right time, but I can't quite connect the dots.
> 
> The reason why PCI IRQ 11 didn't work is above. 
> 
> When we detected a problem with the SCI IRQ type, we were penalizing
> the IRQ below.
> 
> static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) 
> {
> ...
> 	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
> 		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> 
> 		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
> 			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;	<---- here
> 		else
> 			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> 	} 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > To be clear, I'm not asking for any changes in the patch; I'm just
> > trying to understand what's going on.
> 
> Sure, I hope this makes it clear now.
> 
> > 
> >> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> >> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> >> Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
> >> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> >>   * enabled system.
> >>   */
> >>  
> >> +#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
> >>  #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
> >>  
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
> >> @@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
> >>  
> >> -static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
> >> +static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
> >> @@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >>  	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> >> -		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
> >> +		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
> >>  
> >>  	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> >>  	return penalty;
> >> @@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> >>  
> >>  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
> >>  				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> >> -					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> >> +					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> >>  							 possible[i]] +=
> >>  					    penalty;
> >>  			}
> >>  
> >>  		} else if (link->irq.active &&
> >> -				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
> >> -			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> >> +				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> >>  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
> >>  		}
> >>  	}
> >> @@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  /*
> >> - * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> >> + * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> >>   */
> >>  static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>  {
> >> @@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
> >>  		int retval;
> >>  		int irq;
> >> -		int new_penalty;
> >>  
> >>  		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
> >>  
> >>  		if (!retval)
> >>  			break;	/* no number found */
> >>  
> >> -		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
> >> -		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
> >> +		if (irq < 0)
> >> +			continue;
> >> +
> >> +		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> >>  			continue;
> >>  
> >>  		if (used)
> >> -			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> -					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> >>  		else
> >> -			new_penalty = 0;
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
> >>  
> >> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
> >>  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
> >>  			break;
> >>  	}
> >> @@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>   */
> >>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
> >>  {
> >> -	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
> >> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> -		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> >> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> >> +		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> +		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
> >>  {
> >> -	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
> >> +	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
> >>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -- 
> >> 1.9.1
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sinan Kaya
> Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 10/12/2016 6:13 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Hi Sinan,
> > 
> > I have to apologize because I haven't followed all the discussion and
> > now I'm trying to figure it out from the patches and changelogs.  But
> > I guess that's not all bad, because future interested folks *should*
> > be able to figure things out from that :)
> 
> Sure, np. I figured you are busy with the new baseline. Then, I saw a
> series of patches coming from you.
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
> >> size to 16").
> >>
> >> The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
> >> gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
> >> acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
> >> system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
> >> not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
> >> interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
> >> to existing peripherals.
> >>
> >> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
> >> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
> >> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
> >> avoided if possible.
> >>
> >> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
> >> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
> >> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
> >> penalties.
> > 
> > Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
> > called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.
> 
> Correct, I was talking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq function here.
> 
> > 
> > My guess is you're thinking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq() (added back
> > later in this series), which is called here, which is definitely
> > before ACPI objects are available:
> > 
> >   setup_arch
> >     acpi_boot_init
> >       acpi_process_madt
> > 	acpi_parse_madt_ioapic_entries
> > 	  acpi_table_parse_madt
> > 	    acpi_parse_int_src_ovr
> > 	      acpi_sci_ioapic_setup
> > 	        acpi_penalize_sci_irq       # <---
> > 
> >> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
> >> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
> >> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
> >> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
> >>
> >> The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
> >> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
> >> didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
> >>
> >> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
> >> effective for IRQ >= 256.
> > 
> > IIRC, this all started because we needed more than 256 IRQs, but we
> > didn't know how to size a static table to be large enough without
> > being wasteful.
> 
> Correct. We only need 1024 for ARM/ARM64. But, we wanted to remove this
> restriction altogether to be arch proof. One of my earlier proposal was
> to just resize the array to 1024. I was asked if I was wasting resources
> by resizing to 1024.
> 
> > 
> > Prior to 5c5087a55390, we tracked penalties for IRQs 0-255.  After it,
> > we only tracked penalties for IRQs 0-15.  I think this patch basically
> > makes it so we track 0-255 again.
> 
> Yes, we went back to 256 interrupts after the revert. 
> 
> > 
> > *This* patch only increases the range for pcibios_penalize_isa_irq()
> > (and command-line hints, but hopefully nobody cares about those).  A
> > subsequent patch increases it for SCI as well.
> > 
> > The name "ACPI_MAX_IRQS" is now slightly misleading (because we do
> > support more than 256 IRQs) and the 256 value is sort of an
> > unjustified magic number.  16 is explainable as the number of ISA
> > IRQs, but I don't know what 256 is based on (other than historical
> > practice, of course).  ACPI device IRQs can be much larger, and I
> > think the SCI IRQ can be, too (the FADT SCI_INT field is 16 bits).
> > 
> > Can you tie this back to the specific problem on the broken machine
> > somehow?  Do we need a penalty for an IRQ in the 16-255 range?
> 
> The problem on the broken machine was SCI IRQ and PCI IRQ happened to be
> same. It was IRQ 11. When SCI IRQ heavily penalized IRQ 11 due to
> wrong interrupt type detection, PCI IRQs no longer worked as this line
> prohibits using the IRQ.
> 
> 
> 	if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
> 		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
> 			    "Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
> 			    acpi_device_name(link->device),
> 			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
> 		return -ENODEV;
> 	} 

It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
registered.

It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
what patch [3/3] does.

I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
between 16 and 255.

> > In a subsequent patch, I see something about the IRQ type not being
> > updated at the right time, but I can't quite connect the dots.
> 
> The reason why PCI IRQ 11 didn't work is above. 
> 
> When we detected a problem with the SCI IRQ type, we were penalizing
> the IRQ below.
> 
> static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) 
> {
> ...
> 	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
> 		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> 
> 		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
> 			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;	<---- here
> 		else
> 			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> 	} 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > To be clear, I'm not asking for any changes in the patch; I'm just
> > trying to understand what's going on.
> 
> Sure, I hope this makes it clear now.
> 
> > 
> >> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> >> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> >> Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
> >> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> >>   * enabled system.
> >>   */
> >>  
> >> +#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
> >>  #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
> >>  
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
> >> @@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
> >>  
> >> -static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
> >> +static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
> >> @@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >>  	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> >> -		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
> >> +		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
> >>  
> >>  	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> >>  	return penalty;
> >> @@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> >>  
> >>  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
> >>  				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> >> -					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> >> +					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> >>  							 possible[i]] +=
> >>  					    penalty;
> >>  			}
> >>  
> >>  		} else if (link->irq.active &&
> >> -				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
> >> -			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> >> +				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> >>  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
> >>  		}
> >>  	}
> >> @@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  /*
> >> - * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> >> + * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> >>   */
> >>  static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>  {
> >> @@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
> >>  		int retval;
> >>  		int irq;
> >> -		int new_penalty;
> >>  
> >>  		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
> >>  
> >>  		if (!retval)
> >>  			break;	/* no number found */
> >>  
> >> -		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
> >> -		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
> >> +		if (irq < 0)
> >> +			continue;
> >> +
> >> +		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> >>  			continue;
> >>  
> >>  		if (used)
> >> -			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> -					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> >>  		else
> >> -			new_penalty = 0;
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
> >>  
> >> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
> >>  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
> >>  			break;
> >>  	}
> >> @@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>   */
> >>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
> >>  {
> >> -	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
> >> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> -		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> >> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> >> +		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> +		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
> >>  {
> >> -	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
> >> +	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
> >>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -- 
> >> 1.9.1
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sinan Kaya
> Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On 10/12/2016 6:13 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Hi Sinan,
> > 
> > I have to apologize because I haven't followed all the discussion and
> > now I'm trying to figure it out from the patches and changelogs.  But
> > I guess that's not all bad, because future interested folks *should*
> > be able to figure things out from that :)
> 
> Sure, np. I figured you are busy with the new baseline. Then, I saw a
> series of patches coming from you.
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> This reverts commit 5c5087a55390 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array
> >> size to 16").
> >>
> >> The code maintains a fixed size array for IRQ penalties. The array
> >> gets updated by external calls such as acpi_penalize_sci_irq,
> >> acpi_penalize_isa_irq to reflect the actual interrupt usage of the
> >> system. Since the IRQ distribution is platform specific, this is
> >> not known ahead of time. The IRQs get updated based on the SCI
> >> interrupt number BIOS has chosen or the ISA IRQs that were assigned
> >> to existing peripherals.
> >>
> >> By the time ACPI gets initialized, this code tries to determine an
> >> IRQ number based on penalty values in this array. It will try to locate
> >> the IRQ with the least penalty assignment so that interrupt sharing is
> >> avoided if possible.
> >>
> >> A couple of notes about the external APIs:
> >> 1. These API can be called before the ACPI is started. Therefore, one
> >> cannot assume that the PCI link objects are initialized for calculating
> >> penalties.
> > 
> > Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
> > called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.
> 
> Correct, I was talking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq function here.
> 
> > 
> > My guess is you're thinking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq() (added back
> > later in this series), which is called here, which is definitely
> > before ACPI objects are available:
> > 
> >   setup_arch
> >     acpi_boot_init
> >       acpi_process_madt
> > 	acpi_parse_madt_ioapic_entries
> > 	  acpi_table_parse_madt
> > 	    acpi_parse_int_src_ovr
> > 	      acpi_sci_ioapic_setup
> > 	        acpi_penalize_sci_irq       # <---
> > 
> >> 2. The polarity and trigger information passed via the
> >> acpi_penalize_sci_irq from the BIOS may not match what the IRQ subsystem
> >> is reporting as the call might have been placed before the IRQ is
> >> registered by the interrupt subsystem.
> >>
> >> The previous change was in the direction to remove these external API and
> >> try to calculate the penalties at runtime for the ISA path as well. This
> >> didn't work out well with the existing platforms.
> >>
> >> Restoring the old behavior for IRQ < 256 and the new behavior will remain
> >> effective for IRQ >= 256.
> > 
> > IIRC, this all started because we needed more than 256 IRQs, but we
> > didn't know how to size a static table to be large enough without
> > being wasteful.
> 
> Correct. We only need 1024 for ARM/ARM64. But, we wanted to remove this
> restriction altogether to be arch proof. One of my earlier proposal was
> to just resize the array to 1024. I was asked if I was wasting resources
> by resizing to 1024.
> 
> > 
> > Prior to 5c5087a55390, we tracked penalties for IRQs 0-255.  After it,
> > we only tracked penalties for IRQs 0-15.  I think this patch basically
> > makes it so we track 0-255 again.
> 
> Yes, we went back to 256 interrupts after the revert. 
> 
> > 
> > *This* patch only increases the range for pcibios_penalize_isa_irq()
> > (and command-line hints, but hopefully nobody cares about those).  A
> > subsequent patch increases it for SCI as well.
> > 
> > The name "ACPI_MAX_IRQS" is now slightly misleading (because we do
> > support more than 256 IRQs) and the 256 value is sort of an
> > unjustified magic number.  16 is explainable as the number of ISA
> > IRQs, but I don't know what 256 is based on (other than historical
> > practice, of course).  ACPI device IRQs can be much larger, and I
> > think the SCI IRQ can be, too (the FADT SCI_INT field is 16 bits).
> > 
> > Can you tie this back to the specific problem on the broken machine
> > somehow?  Do we need a penalty for an IRQ in the 16-255 range?
> 
> The problem on the broken machine was SCI IRQ and PCI IRQ happened to be
> same. It was IRQ 11. When SCI IRQ heavily penalized IRQ 11 due to
> wrong interrupt type detection, PCI IRQs no longer worked as this line
> prohibits using the IRQ.
> 
> 
> 	if (acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
> 		printk(KERN_ERR PREFIX "No IRQ available for %s [%s]. "
> 			    "Try pci=noacpi or acpi=off\n",
> 			    acpi_device_name(link->device),
> 			    acpi_device_bid(link->device));
> 		return -ENODEV;
> 	} 

It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
registered.

It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
what patch [3/3] does.

I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
between 16 and 255.

> > In a subsequent patch, I see something about the IRQ type not being
> > updated at the right time, but I can't quite connect the dots.
> 
> The reason why PCI IRQ 11 didn't work is above. 
> 
> When we detected a problem with the SCI IRQ type, we were penalizing
> the IRQ below.
> 
> static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq) 
> {
> ...
> 	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
> 		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> 
> 		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
> 			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;	<---- here
> 		else
> 			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> 	} 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > To be clear, I'm not asking for any changes in the patch; I'm just
> > trying to understand what's going on.
> 
> Sure, I hope this makes it clear now.
> 
> > 
> >> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> >> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> >> Link: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/2537016#2537016
> >> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> index c983bf7..f3792f4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> @@ -438,6 +438,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> >>   * enabled system.
> >>   */
> >>  
> >> +#define ACPI_MAX_IRQS		256
> >>  #define ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS	16
> >>  
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE	(16*16)
> >> @@ -446,7 +447,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_set(struct acpi_pci_link *link, int irq)
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED		(16*16*16*16*16)
> >>  #define PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS		(16*16*16*16*16*16)
> >>  
> >> -static int acpi_isa_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS] = {
> >> +static int acpi_irq_penalty[ACPI_MAX_IRQS] = {
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ0 timer */
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ1 keyboard */
> >>  	PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS,	/* IRQ2 cascade */
> >> @@ -511,7 +512,7 @@ static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >>  	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> >> -		return penalty + acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq];
> >> +		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
> >>  
> >>  	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> >>  	return penalty;
> >> @@ -538,14 +539,14 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> >>  
> >>  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
> >>  				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> >> -					acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> >> +					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> >>  							 possible[i]] +=
> >>  					    penalty;
> >>  			}
> >>  
> >>  		} else if (link->irq.active &&
> >> -				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)) {
> >> -			acpi_isa_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> >> +				(link->irq.active < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)) {
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> >>  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
> >>  		}
> >>  	}
> >> @@ -828,7 +829,7 @@ static void acpi_pci_link_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  /*
> >> - * modify acpi_isa_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> >> + * modify acpi_irq_penalty[] from cmdline
> >>   */
> >>  static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>  {
> >> @@ -837,24 +838,24 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>  	for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
> >>  		int retval;
> >>  		int irq;
> >> -		int new_penalty;
> >>  
> >>  		retval = get_option(&str, &irq);
> >>  
> >>  		if (!retval)
> >>  			break;	/* no number found */
> >>  
> >> -		/* see if this is a ISA IRQ */
> >> -		if ((irq < 0) || (irq >= ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS))
> >> +		if (irq < 0)
> >> +			continue;
> >> +
> >> +		if (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> >>  			continue;
> >>  
> >>  		if (used)
> >> -			new_penalty = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> -					PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> +				PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> >>  		else
> >> -			new_penalty = 0;
> >> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = 0;
> >>  
> >> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = new_penalty;
> >>  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
> >>  			break;
> >>  	}
> >> @@ -870,14 +871,14 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >>   */
> >>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
> >>  {
> >> -	if ((irq >= 0) && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty)))
> >> -		acpi_isa_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> -		  (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> >> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty))
> >> +		acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) +
> >> +		    (active ? PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED : PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
> >>  {
> >> -	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_isa_irq_penalty) ||
> >> +	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
> >>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> -- 
> >> 1.9.1
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sinan Kaya
> Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:19PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The SCI function was removed in two steps (first refactor and then remove).
> This patch does the revert in one step.
> 
> The commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements")
> refactored the original code so that SCI penalty is calculated dynamically
> by the time get_penalty function is called. This patch does a partial
> revert for the SCI functionality only.
> 
> The commit 9e5ed6d1fb87 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function") is
> for the removal of the function. SCI penalty API was replaced by the
> runtime penalty calculation based on the value of
> acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt.
> 
> The IRQ type does not get updated at the right time for some platforms and
> results in incorrect penalty assignment for PCI IRQs as
> irq_get_trigger_type returns the wrong type.
> 
> The register_gsi function delivers the IRQ found in the ACPI table to
> the interrupt controller driver.  Penalties are calculated before a
> link object is enabled to find out which interrupt has the least number
> of users. By the time penalties are calculated, the IRQ is not registered
> yet and the API returns the wrong type.
> 
> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/283
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 34 ++++++++++++++--------------------
>  include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> index 90d84c3..0ffd26e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> @@ -453,6 +453,7 @@ static void __init acpi_sci_ioapic_setup(u8 bus_irq, u16 polarity, u16 trigger,
>  		polarity = acpi_sci_flags & ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_MASK;
>  
>  	mp_override_legacy_irq(bus_irq, polarity, trigger, gsi);
> +	acpi_penalize_sci_irq(bus_irq, trigger, polarity);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * stash over-ride to indicate we've been here
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index 06c2a11..6a2af19 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -495,27 +495,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq)
>  
>  static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>  {
> -	int penalty = 0;
> -
> -	/*
> -	* Penalize IRQ used by ACPI SCI. If ACPI SCI pin attributes conflict
> -	* with PCI IRQ attributes, mark ACPI SCI as ISA_ALWAYS so it won't be
> -	* use for PCI IRQs.
> -	*/
> -	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
> -		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> -
> -		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
> -			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> -		else
> -			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> -	}
> -
> -	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> -		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
> +	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
> +		return acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
>  
> -	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> -	return penalty;
> +	return acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
>  }
>  
>  int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> @@ -886,6 +869,17 @@ bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>  }
>  
> +void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
> +{
> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
> +		if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
> +		    polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> +		else
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;

This would be a lot easier to read if the trigger/polarity tests were
positive, e.g.,

  if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
      polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
  else
    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
      
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Over-ride default table to reserve additional IRQs for use by ISA
>   * e.g. acpi_irq_isa=5
> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> index 4d8452c..85ac7d5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ struct pci_dev;
>  int acpi_pci_irq_enable (struct pci_dev *dev);
>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active);
>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq);
> +void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity);
>  void acpi_pci_irq_disable (struct pci_dev *dev);
>  
>  extern int ec_read(u8 addr, u8 *val);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:19PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The SCI function was removed in two steps (first refactor and then remove).
> This patch does the revert in one step.
> 
> The commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements")
> refactored the original code so that SCI penalty is calculated dynamically
> by the time get_penalty function is called. This patch does a partial
> revert for the SCI functionality only.
> 
> The commit 9e5ed6d1fb87 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function") is
> for the removal of the function. SCI penalty API was replaced by the
> runtime penalty calculation based on the value of
> acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt.
> 
> The IRQ type does not get updated at the right time for some platforms and
> results in incorrect penalty assignment for PCI IRQs as
> irq_get_trigger_type returns the wrong type.
> 
> The register_gsi function delivers the IRQ found in the ACPI table to
> the interrupt controller driver.  Penalties are calculated before a
> link object is enabled to find out which interrupt has the least number
> of users. By the time penalties are calculated, the IRQ is not registered
> yet and the API returns the wrong type.
> 
> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/283
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 34 ++++++++++++++--------------------
>  include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> index 90d84c3..0ffd26e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> @@ -453,6 +453,7 @@ static void __init acpi_sci_ioapic_setup(u8 bus_irq, u16 polarity, u16 trigger,
>  		polarity = acpi_sci_flags & ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_MASK;
>  
>  	mp_override_legacy_irq(bus_irq, polarity, trigger, gsi);
> +	acpi_penalize_sci_irq(bus_irq, trigger, polarity);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * stash over-ride to indicate we've been here
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index 06c2a11..6a2af19 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -495,27 +495,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq)
>  
>  static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>  {
> -	int penalty = 0;
> -
> -	/*
> -	* Penalize IRQ used by ACPI SCI. If ACPI SCI pin attributes conflict
> -	* with PCI IRQ attributes, mark ACPI SCI as ISA_ALWAYS so it won't be
> -	* use for PCI IRQs.
> -	*/
> -	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
> -		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> -
> -		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
> -			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> -		else
> -			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> -	}
> -
> -	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> -		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
> +	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
> +		return acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
>  
> -	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> -	return penalty;
> +	return acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
>  }
>  
>  int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> @@ -886,6 +869,17 @@ bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>  }
>  
> +void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
> +{
> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
> +		if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
> +		    polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> +		else
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;

This would be a lot easier to read if the trigger/polarity tests were
positive, e.g.,

  if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
      polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
  else
    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
      
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Over-ride default table to reserve additional IRQs for use by ISA
>   * e.g. acpi_irq_isa=5
> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> index 4d8452c..85ac7d5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ struct pci_dev;
>  int acpi_pci_irq_enable (struct pci_dev *dev);
>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active);
>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq);
> +void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity);
>  void acpi_pci_irq_disable (struct pci_dev *dev);
>  
>  extern int ec_read(u8 addr, u8 *val);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:19PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The SCI function was removed in two steps (first refactor and then remove).
> This patch does the revert in one step.
> 
> The commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements")
> refactored the original code so that SCI penalty is calculated dynamically
> by the time get_penalty function is called. This patch does a partial
> revert for the SCI functionality only.
> 
> The commit 9e5ed6d1fb87 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function") is
> for the removal of the function. SCI penalty API was replaced by the
> runtime penalty calculation based on the value of
> acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt.
> 
> The IRQ type does not get updated at the right time for some platforms and
> results in incorrect penalty assignment for PCI IRQs as
> irq_get_trigger_type returns the wrong type.
> 
> The register_gsi function delivers the IRQ found in the ACPI table to
> the interrupt controller driver.  Penalties are calculated before a
> link object is enabled to find out which interrupt has the least number
> of users. By the time penalties are calculated, the IRQ is not registered
> yet and the API returns the wrong type.
> 
> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/283
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 34 ++++++++++++++--------------------
>  include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> index 90d84c3..0ffd26e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> @@ -453,6 +453,7 @@ static void __init acpi_sci_ioapic_setup(u8 bus_irq, u16 polarity, u16 trigger,
>  		polarity = acpi_sci_flags & ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_MASK;
>  
>  	mp_override_legacy_irq(bus_irq, polarity, trigger, gsi);
> +	acpi_penalize_sci_irq(bus_irq, trigger, polarity);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * stash over-ride to indicate we've been here
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index 06c2a11..6a2af19 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -495,27 +495,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq)
>  
>  static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>  {
> -	int penalty = 0;
> -
> -	/*
> -	* Penalize IRQ used by ACPI SCI. If ACPI SCI pin attributes conflict
> -	* with PCI IRQ attributes, mark ACPI SCI as ISA_ALWAYS so it won't be
> -	* use for PCI IRQs.
> -	*/
> -	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
> -		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> -
> -		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
> -			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> -		else
> -			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> -	}
> -
> -	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> -		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
> +	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
> +		return acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
>  
> -	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> -	return penalty;
> +	return acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
>  }
>  
>  int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> @@ -886,6 +869,17 @@ bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>  }
>  
> +void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
> +{
> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
> +		if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
> +		    polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> +		else
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;

This would be a lot easier to read if the trigger/polarity tests were
positive, e.g.,

  if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
      polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
  else
    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
      
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Over-ride default table to reserve additional IRQs for use by ISA
>   * e.g. acpi_irq_isa=5
> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> index 4d8452c..85ac7d5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ struct pci_dev;
>  int acpi_pci_irq_enable (struct pci_dev *dev);
>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active);
>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq);
> +void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity);
>  void acpi_pci_irq_disable (struct pci_dev *dev);
>  
>  extern int ec_read(u8 addr, u8 *val);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH V2 3/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 05:15:19PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> The SCI function was removed in two steps (first refactor and then remove).
> This patch does the revert in one step.
> 
> The commit 103544d86976 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements")
> refactored the original code so that SCI penalty is calculated dynamically
> by the time get_penalty function is called. This patch does a partial
> revert for the SCI functionality only.
> 
> The commit 9e5ed6d1fb87 ("ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function") is
> for the removal of the function. SCI penalty API was replaced by the
> runtime penalty calculation based on the value of
> acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt.
> 
> The IRQ type does not get updated at the right time for some platforms and
> results in incorrect penalty assignment for PCI IRQs as
> irq_get_trigger_type returns the wrong type.
> 
> The register_gsi function delivers the IRQ found in the ACPI table to
> the interrupt controller driver.  Penalties are calculated before a
> link object is enabled to find out which interrupt has the least number
> of users. By the time penalties are calculated, the IRQ is not registered
> yet and the API returns the wrong type.
> 
> Tested-by: Jonathan Liu <net147@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>
> Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/283
> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c |  1 +
>  drivers/acpi/pci_link.c     | 34 ++++++++++++++--------------------
>  include/linux/acpi.h        |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> index 90d84c3..0ffd26e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> @@ -453,6 +453,7 @@ static void __init acpi_sci_ioapic_setup(u8 bus_irq, u16 polarity, u16 trigger,
>  		polarity = acpi_sci_flags & ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_MASK;
>  
>  	mp_override_legacy_irq(bus_irq, polarity, trigger, gsi);
> +	acpi_penalize_sci_irq(bus_irq, trigger, polarity);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * stash over-ride to indicate we've been here
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index 06c2a11..6a2af19 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -495,27 +495,10 @@ static int acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(int irq)
>  
>  static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>  {
> -	int penalty = 0;
> -
> -	/*
> -	* Penalize IRQ used by ACPI SCI. If ACPI SCI pin attributes conflict
> -	* with PCI IRQ attributes, mark ACPI SCI as ISA_ALWAYS so it won't be
> -	* use for PCI IRQs.
> -	*/
> -	if (irq == acpi_gbl_FADT.sci_interrupt) {
> -		u32 type = irq_get_trigger_type(irq) & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> -
> -		if (type != IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)
> -			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> -		else
> -			penalty += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> -	}
> -
> -	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQS)
> -		return penalty + acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
> +	if (irq < ACPI_MAX_IRQS)
> +		return acpi_irq_penalty[irq];
>  
> -	penalty += acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
> -	return penalty;
> +	return acpi_irq_pci_sharing_penalty(irq);
>  }
>  
>  int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> @@ -886,6 +869,17 @@ bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>  		    acpi_irq_get_penalty(irq) < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>  }
>  
> +void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
> +{
> +	if (irq >= 0 && irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)) {
> +		if (trigger != ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL ||
> +		    polarity != ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> +		else
> +			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;

This would be a lot easier to read if the trigger/polarity tests were
positive, e.g.,

  if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
      polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
  else
    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
      
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Over-ride default table to reserve additional IRQs for use by ISA
>   * e.g. acpi_irq_isa=5
> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> index 4d8452c..85ac7d5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ struct pci_dev;
>  int acpi_pci_irq_enable (struct pci_dev *dev);
>  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active);
>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq);
> +void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity);
>  void acpi_pci_irq_disable (struct pci_dev *dev);
>  
>  extern int ec_read(u8 addr, u8 *val);
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
> which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
> information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
> case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
> registered.
> 
> It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
> what patch [3/3] does.
> 
> I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
> the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
> seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
> between 16 and 255.


I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts. 

The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
the SCI issue for all existing platforms.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
> which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
> information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
> case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
> registered.
> 
> It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
> what patch [3/3] does.
> 
> I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
> the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
> seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
> between 16 and 255.


I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts. 

The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
the SCI issue for all existing platforms.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
> which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
> information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
> case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
> registered.
> 
> It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
> what patch [3/3] does.
> 
> I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
> the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
> seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
> between 16 and 255.


I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts. 

The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
the SCI issue for all existing platforms.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:36:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
> > which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
> > information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
> > case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
> > registered.
> > 
> > It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
> > what patch [3/3] does.
> > 
> > I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
> > the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
> > seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
> > between 16 and 255.
> 
> 
> I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts. 
> 
> The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
> this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
> However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
> the SCI issue for all existing platforms.

I saw a previous email that said the SCI interrupt could not be
greater than 256, but I don't know where that restriction is.  I'm
pretty sure the FADT field is 2 bytes, which would mean it could be up
to 65535.

To fix this problem, I think we only need to fix the penalty for the
SCI interrupt.  It seems better to add a single "sci_penalty"
variable, set it to PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING if it's level/low or
PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS otherwise, and add "sci_penalty" in when
appropriate.  That should fix it for *any* SCI IRQ, not just those
less than 256, and we don't have to add these extra penalty table
entries that are all unused (except possibly for one entry if we have
an SCI in the 16-255 range).

Something like this:

  static int sci_irq, sci_penalty;

  void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
  {
    sci = irq;
    if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
        polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
      sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
    else
      sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
  }

  static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
  {
    int penalty = 0;

    if (irq == sci_irq)
      penalty += sci_penalty;
    ...
  }

One could argue that ACPI devices can use IRQs above 15, and we should
handle penalties for them, too.  But the table is the wrong mechanism
for that, because it handles penalties for IRQs < 256, but IRQs above
that would mysteriously be handled differently.

Bjorn

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:36:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
> > which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
> > information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
> > case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
> > registered.
> > 
> > It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
> > what patch [3/3] does.
> > 
> > I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
> > the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
> > seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
> > between 16 and 255.
> 
> 
> I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts. 
> 
> The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
> this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
> However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
> the SCI issue for all existing platforms.

I saw a previous email that said the SCI interrupt could not be
greater than 256, but I don't know where that restriction is.  I'm
pretty sure the FADT field is 2 bytes, which would mean it could be up
to 65535.

To fix this problem, I think we only need to fix the penalty for the
SCI interrupt.  It seems better to add a single "sci_penalty"
variable, set it to PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING if it's level/low or
PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS otherwise, and add "sci_penalty" in when
appropriate.  That should fix it for *any* SCI IRQ, not just those
less than 256, and we don't have to add these extra penalty table
entries that are all unused (except possibly for one entry if we have
an SCI in the 16-255 range).

Something like this:

  static int sci_irq, sci_penalty;

  void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
  {
    sci = irq;
    if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
        polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
      sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
    else
      sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
  }

  static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
  {
    int penalty = 0;

    if (irq == sci_irq)
      penalty += sci_penalty;
    ...
  }

One could argue that ACPI devices can use IRQs above 15, and we should
handle penalties for them, too.  But the table is the wrong mechanism
for that, because it handles penalties for IRQs < 256, but IRQs above
that would mysteriously be handled differently.

Bjorn

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

On 10/13/2016 4:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:36:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
>>> which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
>>> information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
>>> case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
>>> registered.
>>>
>>> It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
>>> what patch [3/3] does.
>>>
>>> I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
>>> the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
>>> seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
>>> between 16 and 255.
>>
>>
>> I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts. 
>>
>> The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
>> this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
>> However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
>> the SCI issue for all existing platforms.
> 
> I saw a previous email that said the SCI interrupt could not be
> greater than 256, but I don't know where that restriction is.  I'm
> pretty sure the FADT field is 2 bytes, which would mean it could be up
> to 65535.
> 
> To fix this problem, I think we only need to fix the penalty for the
> SCI interrupt.  It seems better to add a single "sci_penalty"
> variable, set it to PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING if it's level/low or
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS otherwise, and add "sci_penalty" in when
> appropriate.  That should fix it for *any* SCI IRQ, not just those
> less than 256, and we don't have to add these extra penalty table
> entries that are all unused (except possibly for one entry if we have
> an SCI in the 16-255 range).
> 
> Something like this:
> 
>   static int sci_irq, sci_penalty;
> 
>   void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
>   {
>     sci = irq;
>     if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
>         polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>     else
>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>   }
> 
>   static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>   {
>     int penalty = 0;
> 
>     if (irq == sci_irq)
>       penalty += sci_penalty;
>     ...
>   }
> 
> One could argue that ACPI devices can use IRQs above 15, and we should
> handle penalties for them, too.  But the table is the wrong mechanism
> for that, because it handles penalties for IRQs < 256, but IRQs above
> that would mysteriously be handled differently.
> 
> Bjorn
> 

I agree this is a better approach. I think my math was wrong when figuring
out what a max SCI interrupt could be.



-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

On 10/13/2016 4:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:36:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
>>> which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
>>> information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
>>> case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
>>> registered.
>>>
>>> It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
>>> what patch [3/3] does.
>>>
>>> I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
>>> the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
>>> seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
>>> between 16 and 255.
>>
>>
>> I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts. 
>>
>> The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
>> this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
>> However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
>> the SCI issue for all existing platforms.
> 
> I saw a previous email that said the SCI interrupt could not be
> greater than 256, but I don't know where that restriction is.  I'm
> pretty sure the FADT field is 2 bytes, which would mean it could be up
> to 65535.
> 
> To fix this problem, I think we only need to fix the penalty for the
> SCI interrupt.  It seems better to add a single "sci_penalty"
> variable, set it to PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING if it's level/low or
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS otherwise, and add "sci_penalty" in when
> appropriate.  That should fix it for *any* SCI IRQ, not just those
> less than 256, and we don't have to add these extra penalty table
> entries that are all unused (except possibly for one entry if we have
> an SCI in the 16-255 range).
> 
> Something like this:
> 
>   static int sci_irq, sci_penalty;
> 
>   void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
>   {
>     sci = irq;
>     if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
>         polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>     else
>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>   }
> 
>   static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>   {
>     int penalty = 0;
> 
>     if (irq == sci_irq)
>       penalty += sci_penalty;
>     ...
>   }
> 
> One could argue that ACPI devices can use IRQs above 15, and we should
> handle penalties for them, too.  But the table is the wrong mechanism
> for that, because it handles penalties for IRQs < 256, but IRQs above
> that would mysteriously be handled differently.
> 
> Bjorn
> 

I agree this is a better approach. I think my math was wrong when figuring
out what a max SCI interrupt could be.



-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

On 10/13/2016 4:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:36:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
>>> which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
>>> information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
>>> case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
>>> registered.
>>>
>>> It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
>>> what patch [3/3] does.
>>>
>>> I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
>>> the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
>>> seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
>>> between 16 and 255.
>>
>>
>> I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts. 
>>
>> The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
>> this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
>> However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
>> the SCI issue for all existing platforms.
> 
> I saw a previous email that said the SCI interrupt could not be
> greater than 256, but I don't know where that restriction is.  I'm
> pretty sure the FADT field is 2 bytes, which would mean it could be up
> to 65535.
> 
> To fix this problem, I think we only need to fix the penalty for the
> SCI interrupt.  It seems better to add a single "sci_penalty"
> variable, set it to PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING if it's level/low or
> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS otherwise, and add "sci_penalty" in when
> appropriate.  That should fix it for *any* SCI IRQ, not just those
> less than 256, and we don't have to add these extra penalty table
> entries that are all unused (except possibly for one entry if we have
> an SCI in the 16-255 range).
> 
> Something like this:
> 
>   static int sci_irq, sci_penalty;
> 
>   void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
>   {
>     sci = irq;
>     if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
>         polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>     else
>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>   }
> 
>   static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>   {
>     int penalty = 0;
> 
>     if (irq == sci_irq)
>       penalty += sci_penalty;
>     ...
>   }
> 
> One could argue that ACPI devices can use IRQs above 15, and we should
> handle penalties for them, too.  But the table is the wrong mechanism
> for that, because it handles penalties for IRQs < 256, but IRQs above
> that would mysteriously be handled differently.
> 
> Bjorn
> 

I agree this is a better approach. I think my math was wrong when figuring
out what a max SCI interrupt could be.



-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 4:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:36:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
>>>> which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
>>>> information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
>>>> case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
>>>> registered.
>>>>
>>>> It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
>>>> what patch [3/3] does.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
>>>> the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
>>>> seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
>>>> between 16 and 255.
>>>
>>>
>>> I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts.
>>>
>>> The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
>>> this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
>>> However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
>>> the SCI issue for all existing platforms.
>>
>> I saw a previous email that said the SCI interrupt could not be
>> greater than 256, but I don't know where that restriction is.  I'm
>> pretty sure the FADT field is 2 bytes, which would mean it could be up
>> to 65535.
>>
>> To fix this problem, I think we only need to fix the penalty for the
>> SCI interrupt.  It seems better to add a single "sci_penalty"
>> variable, set it to PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING if it's level/low or
>> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS otherwise, and add "sci_penalty" in when
>> appropriate.  That should fix it for *any* SCI IRQ, not just those
>> less than 256, and we don't have to add these extra penalty table
>> entries that are all unused (except possibly for one entry if we have
>> an SCI in the 16-255 range).
>>
>> Something like this:
>>
>>   static int sci_irq, sci_penalty;
>>
>>   void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
>>   {
>>     sci = irq;
>>     if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
>>         polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>     else
>>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>>   }
>>
>>   static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>>   {
>>     int penalty = 0;
>>
>>     if (irq == sci_irq)
>>       penalty += sci_penalty;
>>     ...
>>   }
>>
>> One could argue that ACPI devices can use IRQs above 15, and we should
>> handle penalties for them, too.  But the table is the wrong mechanism
>> for that, because it handles penalties for IRQs < 256, but IRQs above
>> that would mysteriously be handled differently.
>>
>> Bjorn
>>
>
> I agree this is a better approach. I think my math was wrong when figuring
> out what a max SCI interrupt could be.

OK

I will be expecting a new patch (or a new series) then.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 4:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:36:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
>>>> which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
>>>> information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
>>>> case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
>>>> registered.
>>>>
>>>> It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
>>>> what patch [3/3] does.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
>>>> the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
>>>> seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
>>>> between 16 and 255.
>>>
>>>
>>> I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts.
>>>
>>> The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
>>> this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
>>> However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
>>> the SCI issue for all existing platforms.
>>
>> I saw a previous email that said the SCI interrupt could not be
>> greater than 256, but I don't know where that restriction is.  I'm
>> pretty sure the FADT field is 2 bytes, which would mean it could be up
>> to 65535.
>>
>> To fix this problem, I think we only need to fix the penalty for the
>> SCI interrupt.  It seems better to add a single "sci_penalty"
>> variable, set it to PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING if it's level/low or
>> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS otherwise, and add "sci_penalty" in when
>> appropriate.  That should fix it for *any* SCI IRQ, not just those
>> less than 256, and we don't have to add these extra penalty table
>> entries that are all unused (except possibly for one entry if we have
>> an SCI in the 16-255 range).
>>
>> Something like this:
>>
>>   static int sci_irq, sci_penalty;
>>
>>   void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
>>   {
>>     sci = irq;
>>     if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
>>         polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>     else
>>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>>   }
>>
>>   static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>>   {
>>     int penalty = 0;
>>
>>     if (irq == sci_irq)
>>       penalty += sci_penalty;
>>     ...
>>   }
>>
>> One could argue that ACPI devices can use IRQs above 15, and we should
>> handle penalties for them, too.  But the table is the wrong mechanism
>> for that, because it handles penalties for IRQs < 256, but IRQs above
>> that would mysteriously be handled differently.
>>
>> Bjorn
>>
>
> I agree this is a better approach. I think my math was wrong when figuring
> out what a max SCI interrupt could be.

OK

I will be expecting a new patch (or a new series) then.

Thanks,
Rafael

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Sinan Kaya <okaya@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 4:02 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 03:36:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2016 2:15 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>> It seems like the problem is that we removed acpi_penalize_sci_irq(),
>>>> which told us the polarity and trigger mode.  We tried to get that
>>>> information via irq_get_trigger_type(), but that didn't work in this
>>>> case because we use the acpi_irq_get_penalty() path before the SCI is
>>>> registered.
>>>>
>>>> It makes sense to me to add acpi_penalize_sci_irq() back in, which is
>>>> what patch [3/3] does.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how *this* patch, which basically just increases
>>>> the penalty array size from 16 to 256, helps fix the problem.  It
>>>> seems like this patch should only matter if the SCI were some IRQ
>>>> between 16 and 255.
>>>
>>>
>>> I see your point. The original code supported 256 interrupts.
>>>
>>> The machine where we had the problem had an SCI interrupt of 11. So,
>>> this patch does not necessarily fix anything for this machine alone.
>>> However, to be safe; I wanted to go back to the old behavior to fix
>>> the SCI issue for all existing platforms.
>>
>> I saw a previous email that said the SCI interrupt could not be
>> greater than 256, but I don't know where that restriction is.  I'm
>> pretty sure the FADT field is 2 bytes, which would mean it could be up
>> to 65535.
>>
>> To fix this problem, I think we only need to fix the penalty for the
>> SCI interrupt.  It seems better to add a single "sci_penalty"
>> variable, set it to PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING if it's level/low or
>> PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS otherwise, and add "sci_penalty" in when
>> appropriate.  That should fix it for *any* SCI IRQ, not just those
>> less than 256, and we don't have to add these extra penalty table
>> entries that are all unused (except possibly for one entry if we have
>> an SCI in the 16-255 range).
>>
>> Something like this:
>>
>>   static int sci_irq, sci_penalty;
>>
>>   void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
>>   {
>>     sci = irq;
>>     if (trigger == ACPI_MADT_TRIGGER_LEVEL &&
>>         polarity == ACPI_MADT_POLARITY_ACTIVE_LOW)
>>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
>>     else
>>       sci_penalty = PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>>   }
>>
>>   static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
>>   {
>>     int penalty = 0;
>>
>>     if (irq == sci_irq)
>>       penalty += sci_penalty;
>>     ...
>>   }
>>
>> One could argue that ACPI devices can use IRQs above 15, and we should
>> handle penalties for them, too.  But the table is the wrong mechanism
>> for that, because it handles penalties for IRQs < 256, but IRQs above
>> that would mysteriously be handled differently.
>>
>> Bjorn
>>
>
> I agree this is a better approach. I think my math was wrong when figuring
> out what a max SCI interrupt could be.

OK

I will be expecting a new patch (or a new series) then.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

On 10/12/2016 6:46 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
>> > called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.
> Correct, I was talking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq function here.
> 

Now that I'm looking at the code. There are two more functions that get
called before ACPI start. 

These are acpi_isa_irq_available and acpi_penalize_isa_irq functions. 
We can't rely on iterating the link list.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

On 10/12/2016 6:46 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
>> > called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.
> Correct, I was talking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq function here.
> 

Now that I'm looking at the code. There are two more functions that get
called before ACPI start. 

These are acpi_isa_irq_available and acpi_penalize_isa_irq functions. 
We can't rely on iterating the link list.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[PATCH V2 1/3] Revert "ACPI, PCI, IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16"

[Sinan Kaya]

On 10/12/2016 6:46 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> Which API are you thinking about here?  pcibios_penalize_isa_irq() is
>> > called by ACPI and PNP, which should both be after ACPI is started.
> Correct, I was talking about acpi_penalize_sci_irq function here.
> 

Now that I'm looking at the code. There are two more functions that get
called before ACPI start. 

These are acpi_isa_irq_available and acpi_penalize_isa_irq functions. 
We can't rely on iterating the link list.

-- 
Sinan Kaya
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.