From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, julien.thierry@arm.com
Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel.opensrc@gmail.com>,
"moderated list:ARM64 PORT (AARCH64 ARCHITECTURE)"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: provide pseudo NMI with GICv3
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 12:08:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8f7de708-8281-4030-e727-8263f110b21c@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+orJPfY4OMbNa5BqgteyYL+-r2vj+5O_ohbHe5_F-7TWTg@mail.gmail.com>
On 01/05/18 21:51, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:46 AM Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
> wrote:
> [...]
>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 3:54 AM, Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This series is a continuation of the work started by Daniel [1]. The
> goal
>>>> is to use GICv3 interrupt priorities to simulate an NMI.
>>>>
>>>> To achieve this, set two priorities, one for standard interrupts and
>>>> another, higher priority, for NMIs. Whenever we want to disable
> interrupts,
>>>> we mask the standard priority instead so NMIs can still be raised. Some
>>>> corner cases though still require to actually mask all interrupts
>>>> effectively disabling the NMI.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, using priority masking instead of PSR.I comes at some cost.
> On
>>>> hackbench, the drop of performance seems to be >1% on average for this
>>>> version. I can only attribute that to recent changes in the kernel as
>>>
>>> Do you have more specific performance data on the performance overhead
>>> with this series?
>>>
>
>> Not at the moment. I was planning on doing a v3 anyway considering this
>> series is getting a bit old and the GICv3 driver has had some
> modifications.
>
> Great! Looking forward to it, will try to find some time to review this set
> as well.
>
>> Once I get to it I can try to have more detailed performance data on a
>> recent kernel. I've really only measured the performance on hackbench
>> and on kernel build from defconfig (and for the kernel build the
>> performance difference was completely hidden by the noise).
>
>>>> hackbench seems slightly slower compared to my other benchmarks while
> the
>>>> runs with the use of GICv3 priorities have stayed in the same time
> frames.
>>>> KVM Guests do not seem to be affected preformance-wise by the host
> using
>>>> PMR to mask interrupts or not.
>>>>
>>>> Currently, only PPIs and SPIs can be set as NMIs. IPIs being currently
>>>> hardcoded IRQ numbers, there isn't a generic interface to set SGIs as
> NMI
>>>> for now. I don't think there is any reason LPIs should be allowed to
> be set
>>>> as NMI as they do not have an active state.
>>>> When an NMI is active on a CPU, no other NMI can be triggered on the
> CPU.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Requirements to use this:
>>>> - Have GICv3
>>>> - SCR_EL3.FIQ is set to 1 when linux runs
>>>
>>> Ah I see it mentioned here. Again, can you clarify if this is
>>> something that can be misconfigured? Is it something that the
>>> bootloader sets?
>>>
>
>> Yes, this is something that the bootloader sets and we have seen a few
>> cases where it is set to 0, so it can be "misconfigured".
>
>> It is not impossible to handle this case, but this bit affects the view
>> the GICv3 CPU interface has on interrupt priority values. However it
>> requires to add some conditions in both the interrupt handling and
>> masking/unmasking code, so ideally we would avoid adding things to this.
>
>> But the idea is that Linux only deals with group 1 interrupts, and group
>> 1 interrupts are only signaled as FIQs when the execution state is
>> secure or at EL3, which should never happen in Linux's case. So ideally
>> we'd like firmwares to set up this bit properly rather than to have to
>> deal with both cases when only one of them makes sense for Linux.
>
> From what I see, on all our platforms, FIQs are delivered to the secure
> monitor only. Which is the reason for this patchset in the first place. I
> can't imagine a usecase that is not designed like this (and have not come
> across this), so its probably Ok to just assume SCR_EL3.FIQ is to 1.
>
> In the future, if SCR_EL3.FIQ is set 0, then the NMI should use the FIQ
> mechanism delivered to the non-secure OS.
>
> Does what I say make sense or was I just shooting arrows in the dark? :-P
It would mean teaching Group-0 interrupts to the arm64 kernel. Not an
impossible task, but that'd be catering for a minority of broken
systems. In my book, that's at the absolute bottom of the priority range
(pun intended...).
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-02 11:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-17 11:54 [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: provide pseudo NMI with GICv3 Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64: cpufeature: Allow early detect of specific features Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 12:05 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 12:21 ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 13:38 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-01-22 13:57 ` Marc Zyngier
2018-01-22 14:14 ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 14:20 ` Marc Zyngier
2018-01-22 14:45 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 15:01 ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 15:13 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-22 15:23 ` Julien Thierry
2018-01-22 15:34 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] arm64: alternative: Apply alternatives early in boot process Julien Thierry
2018-05-04 10:06 ` Julien Thierry
2018-05-09 14:27 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-05-09 21:52 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-05-11 8:12 ` Julien Thierry
2018-05-11 9:19 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] arm64: irqflags: Use ICC sysregs to implement IRQ masking Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] irqchip/gic: Add functions to access irq priorities Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] arm64: Detect current view of GIC priorities Julien Thierry
2018-02-03 3:01 ` Yang Yingliang
2018-01-17 11:54 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] arm64: Add support for pseudo-NMIs Julien Thierry
2018-01-17 12:10 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: provide pseudo NMI with GICv3 Julien Thierry
2018-04-29 6:37 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-30 9:53 ` Julien Thierry
2018-04-30 10:55 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-05-01 18:18 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-02 11:02 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-04-29 6:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-30 9:46 ` Julien Thierry
2018-05-01 20:51 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-02 11:08 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8f7de708-8281-4030-e727-8263f110b21c@arm.com \
--to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=joel.opensrc@gmail.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=julien.thierry@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).