From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> To: <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, <andre.przywara@arm.com>, <eric.auger@redhat.com>, <drjones@redhat.com> Cc: <tglx@linutronix.de>, <jason@lakedaemon.net>, <wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> Subject: [RFC PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: Correct the usage of GICD_CTLR's RWP field Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 04:15:54 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1557720954-6592-1-git-send-email-yuzenghui@huawei.com> (raw) As per ARM IHI 0069D, GICD_CTLR's RWP field tracks updates to: GICD_CTLR's Group Enable bits, for transitions from 1 to 0 only GICD_CTLR's ARE bits, E1NWF bit and DS bit (if we have) GICD_ICENABLER<n> We seemed use this field in an inappropriate way, somewhere in the GIC-v3 driver. For some examples: In gic_set_affinity(), if the interrupt was not enabled, we only need to write GICD_IROUTER<n> with the appropriate mpidr value. Updates to GICD_IROUTER will not be tracked by RWP field, and we can remove the unnecessary RWP waiting. In gic_dist_init(), we "Enable distributor with ARE, Group1" by writing to GICD_CTLR, and we should use gic_dist_wait_for_rwp() here. These two are obvious cases, and there are some other cases where we don't need to do RWP waiting, such as in gic_configure_irq() and gic_poke_irq(). But too many modifications makes me not confident. It's hard for me to say whether this patch is doing the right thing and how does the RWP waiting affect the system, thus RFC. Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> --- drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 8 ++------ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c index 15e55d3..8d63950 100644 --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c @@ -600,6 +600,7 @@ static void __init gic_dist_init(void) /* Enable distributor with ARE, Group1 */ writel_relaxed(GICD_CTLR_ARE_NS | GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1A | GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1, base + GICD_CTLR); + gic_dist_wait_for_rwp(); /* * Set all global interrupts to the boot CPU only. ARE must be @@ -986,14 +987,9 @@ static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask_val, gic_write_irouter(val, reg); - /* - * If the interrupt was enabled, enabled it again. Otherwise, - * just wait for the distributor to have digested our changes. - */ + /* If the interrupt was enabled, enabled it again. */ if (enabled) gic_unmask_irq(d); - else - gic_dist_wait_for_rwp(); irq_data_update_effective_affinity(d, cpumask_of(cpu)); -- 1.8.3.1
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> To: <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, <andre.przywara@arm.com>, <eric.auger@redhat.com>, <drjones@redhat.com> Cc: jason@lakedaemon.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>, wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [RFC PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: Correct the usage of GICD_CTLR's RWP field Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 04:15:54 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1557720954-6592-1-git-send-email-yuzenghui@huawei.com> (raw) As per ARM IHI 0069D, GICD_CTLR's RWP field tracks updates to: GICD_CTLR's Group Enable bits, for transitions from 1 to 0 only GICD_CTLR's ARE bits, E1NWF bit and DS bit (if we have) GICD_ICENABLER<n> We seemed use this field in an inappropriate way, somewhere in the GIC-v3 driver. For some examples: In gic_set_affinity(), if the interrupt was not enabled, we only need to write GICD_IROUTER<n> with the appropriate mpidr value. Updates to GICD_IROUTER will not be tracked by RWP field, and we can remove the unnecessary RWP waiting. In gic_dist_init(), we "Enable distributor with ARE, Group1" by writing to GICD_CTLR, and we should use gic_dist_wait_for_rwp() here. These two are obvious cases, and there are some other cases where we don't need to do RWP waiting, such as in gic_configure_irq() and gic_poke_irq(). But too many modifications makes me not confident. It's hard for me to say whether this patch is doing the right thing and how does the RWP waiting affect the system, thus RFC. Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com> --- drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 8 ++------ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c index 15e55d3..8d63950 100644 --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c @@ -600,6 +600,7 @@ static void __init gic_dist_init(void) /* Enable distributor with ARE, Group1 */ writel_relaxed(GICD_CTLR_ARE_NS | GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1A | GICD_CTLR_ENABLE_G1, base + GICD_CTLR); + gic_dist_wait_for_rwp(); /* * Set all global interrupts to the boot CPU only. ARE must be @@ -986,14 +987,9 @@ static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask_val, gic_write_irouter(val, reg); - /* - * If the interrupt was enabled, enabled it again. Otherwise, - * just wait for the distributor to have digested our changes. - */ + /* If the interrupt was enabled, enabled it again. */ if (enabled) gic_unmask_irq(d); - else - gic_dist_wait_for_rwp(); irq_data_update_effective_affinity(d, cpumask_of(cpu)); -- 1.8.3.1 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next reply other threads:[~2019-05-13 4:18 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-05-13 4:15 Zenghui Yu [this message] 2019-05-13 4:15 ` [RFC PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: Correct the usage of GICD_CTLR's RWP field Zenghui Yu 2019-05-13 8:37 ` Andre Przywara 2019-05-13 8:37 ` Andre Przywara 2019-05-13 11:55 ` Zenghui Yu 2019-05-13 11:55 ` Zenghui Yu
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=1557720954-6592-1-git-send-email-yuzenghui@huawei.com \ --to=yuzenghui@huawei.com \ --cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \ --cc=drjones@redhat.com \ --cc=eric.auger@redhat.com \ --cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=wanghaibin.wang@huawei.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.