On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:54 AM Auger Eric <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 1/25/21 9:36 PM, Alex Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:46:47 -0500 > > Micah Morton <mortonm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Hi Eric, > >> > >> I was recently looking into some vfio-platform passthrough stuff and > >> came across a device I wanted to assign to a guest that uses a ONESHOT > >> type interrupt (these type of interrupts seem to be quite common, on > >> ARM at least). The semantics for ONESHOT interrupts are a bit > >> different from regular level triggered interrupts as I'll describe > >> here: > >> > >> The normal generic code flow for level-triggered interrupts is as follows: > >> > >> - regular type[1]: mask[2] the irq, then run the handler, then > >> unmask[3] the irq and done > >> > >> - fasteoi type[4]: run the handler, then eoi[5] the irq and done > >> > >> Note: IIUC the fasteoi type doesn't do any irq masking/unmasking > >> because that is assumed to be handled transparently by "modern forms > >> of interrupt handlers, which handle the flow details in hardware" > >> > >> ONESHOT type interrupts are a special case of the fasteoi type > >> described above. They rely on the driver registering a threaded > >> handler for the interrupt and assume the irq line will remain masked > >> until the threaded handler completes, at which time the line will be > >> unmasked. TL;DR: > >> > >> - mask[6] the irq, run the handler, and potentially eoi[7] the irq, > >> then unmask[8] later when the threaded handler has finished running. > > > > This doesn't seem quite correct to me, it skips the discussion of the > > hard vs threaded handler, where the "regular" type would expect the > > device interrupt to be masked in the hard handler, such that the > > controller line can be unmasked during execution of the threaded handler > > (if it exists). It seems fasteoi is more transactional, ie. rather handle_irq_event() only waits for the hard handler to run, not the threaded handler. And then this comment (https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.10.7/source/kernel/irq/chip.c#L622) implies that the "regular" type IRQs are not normally unmasked by the threaded handler but rather before that as part of handle_level_irq() after handle_irq_event() has returned (since cond_unmask_irq() is always called there and handle_irq_event() doesn't wait for the threaded handler to run before returning). I don't actually have first hand knowledge one way or another whether threaded handlers normally unmask the IRQ themselves -- just reading the generic IRQ code. Let me know if I'm missing something here. > > than masking around quiescing the device interrupt, we only need to > > send an eoi once we're ready for a new interrupt. ONESHOT, OTOH, is a > > means of deferring all device handling to the threaded interrupt, > > specifically for cases such as an i2c device where the bus interaction > > necessitates non-IRQ-context handling. Sound right? The rest of this matches my understanding. > > > >> > >> For vfio-platform irq forwarding, there is no existing function in > >> drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c[9] that is a good candidate > >> for registering as the threaded handler for a ONESHOT interrupt in the > >> case we want to request the ONESHOT irq with > >> request_threaded_irq()[10]. Moreover, we can't just register a > >> threaded function that simply immediately returns IRQ_HANDLED (as is > >> done in vfio_irq_handler()[11] and vfio_automasked_irq_handler()[12]), > >> since that would cause the IRQ to be unmasked[13] immediately, before > >> the userspace/guest driver has had any chance to service the > >> interrupt. > > > > Are you proposing servicing the device interrupt before it's sent to > > userspace? A ONESHOT irq is going to eoi the interrupt when the thread No I wasn't thinking of doing any servicing before userspace gets it > > exits, before userspace services the interrupt, so this seems like a Yeah, although I would say unmask rather than eoi, since as Eric just pointed out IRQCHIP_EOI_THREADED is not supported by GIC. IOW, the GIC irqchip does not "require eoi() on unmask in threaded mode" (https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.10.7/source/include/linux/irq.h#L575). The unmask will happen after the thread exits, due to irq_finalize_oneshot() being called from irq_thread_fn() > > case where we'd need to mask the irq regardless of fasteoi handling so > > that it cannot re-assert before userspace manages the device. Our > > existing autmasked for level triggered interrupts should handle this. Yeah that's what I want as well. The thing that was tripping me up is this description of irq_disable (disable_irq_nosync() as used in VFIO is a wrapper for irq_disable): https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.10.10/source/kernel/irq/chip.c#L371 . This makes it seem like depending on irqchip internals (whether chip implements irq_disable() callback or not, and what that callback actually does), we may not be actually masking the irq at the irqchip level during the disable (although if the IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY flag is set then irq_disable() will lead to mask() being called in the case the irqchip doesn't implement the disable() callback. But in the normal case I think that flag is not set). So seemed to me with ONESHOT we would run the risk of an extra pending interrupt that was never intended by the hardware (i.e. "an interrupt happens, then the interrupt flow handler masks the line at the hardware level and marks it pending"). I guess if we know we are going to ignore this pending interrupt down the line after guest/userspace has finished with the interrupt injection then this isn't an issue. > > that's my understanding too. If we keep the current automasked level > sensitive vfio driver scheme and if the guest deactivates the vIRQ when > the guest irq thread has completed its job we should be good. So you're saying even if we get a pending interrupt VFIO will correctly ignore it? Or you're saying we won't get one since the IRQ will be masked (by some guarantee I don't yet understand)? > > > >> The most obvious way I see to handle this is to add a threaded handler > >> to vfio_platform_irq.c that waits until the userspace/guest driver has > >> serviced the interrupt and the unmask_handler[14] has been called, at > >> which point it returns IRQ_HANDLED so the generic IRQ code in the host > >> can finally unmask the interrupt. > > > > An interrupt thread with an indeterminate, user controlled runtime > > seems bad. The fact that fasteoi will send an eoi doesn't also mean > > that it can't be masked. Yeah ok. And as mentioned above doesn't look like we're doing the eoi on ARM GIC anyway. > > > >> Does this sound like a reasonable approach and something you would be > >> fine with adding to vfio-platform? If so I could get started looking > >> at the implementation for how to sleep in the threaded handler in > >> vfio-platform until the unmask_handler is called. The most tricky/ugly > >> part of this is that DT has no knowledge of irq ONESHOT-ness, as it > >> only contains info regarding active-low vs active-high and edge vs > >> level trigger. That means that vfio-platform can't figure out that a > >> device uses a ONESHOT irq in a similar way to how it queries[15] the > >> trigger type, and by extension QEMU can't learn this information > >> through the VFIO_DEVICE_GET_IRQ_INFO ioctl, but must have another way > >> of knowing (i.e. command line option to QEMU). > > > > Seems like existing level handling w/ masking should handle this, imo. > > > >> I guess potentially another option would be to treat ONESHOT > >> interrupts like regular level triggered interrupts from the > >> perspective of vfio-platform, but somehow ensure the interrupt stays > >> masked during injection to the guest, rather than just disabled. I'm > >> not sure whether this could cause legitimate interrupts coming from > >> devices to be missed while the injection for an existing interrupt is > >> underway, but maybe this is a rare enough scenario that we wouldn't > >> care. The main issue with this approach is that handle_level_irq()[16] > >> will try to unmask the irq out from under us after we start the > >> injection (as it is already masked before > >> vfio_automasked_irq_handler[17] runs anyway). Not sure if masking at > >> the irqchip level supports nesting or not. > > > > I'd expect either an unmask at the controller or eoi to re-evaluate the > > interrupt condition and re-assert as needed. The interrupt will need to > > be exclusive to the device so as not to starve other devices. > To me the physical IRQ pending state depends on the line level. > Depending on this line level, on the unmask the irqchip reevaluates > whether it should be fired. > > Thanks > > Eric > > > >> Let me know if you think either of these are viable options for adding > >> ONESHOT interrupt forwarding support to vfio-platform? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Micah > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Additional note about level triggered vs ONESHOT irq forwarding: > >> For the regular type of level triggered interrupt described above, the > >> vfio handler will call disable_irq_nosync()[18] before the > >> handle_level_irq() function unmasks the irq and returns. This ensures > >> if new interrupts come in on the line while the existing one is being > >> handled by the guest (and the irq is therefore disabled), that the > >> vfio_automasked_irq_handler() isn’t triggered again until the > >> vfio_platform_unmask_handler() function has been triggered by the > >> guest (causing the irq to be re-enabled[19]). In other words, the > >> purpose of the irq enable/disable that already exists in vfio-platform > >> is a higher level concept that delays handling of additional > >> level-triggered interrupts in the host until the current one has been > >> handled in the guest. > > > > I wouldn't say "delays", the interrupt condition is not re-evaluated > > until the interrupt is unmasked, by which point the user has had an > > opportunity to service the device, which could de-assert the interrupt > > such that there is no pending interrupt on unmask. It therefore blocks No pending interrupt on unmask definitely seems like what we want for ONESHOT. You're saying we have that? > > further interrupts until user serviced and unmasked. > > > >> This means that the existing level triggered interrupt forwarding > >> logic in vfio/vfio-platform is not sufficient for handling ONESHOT > >> interrupts (i.e. we can’t just treat a ONESHOT interrupt like a > >> regular level triggered interrupt in the host and use the existing > >> vfio forwarding code). The masking that needs to happen for ONESHOT > >> interrupts is at the lower level of the irqchip mask/unmask in that > >> the ONESHOT irq needs to remain masked (not just disabled) until the > >> driver’s threaded handler has completed. > > > > I don't see that this is true, unmasking the irq should cause the > > controller to re-evaluate the irq condition on the device end and issue > > a new interrupt as necessary. Right? Thanks, > if the line is asserted, Yeah, my concern was that the re-evaluation would come to the wrong conclusion if the ONESHOT irq was lazily disabled without doing the mask at the irqchip HW level. > > > > Alex > > >
