Hi Thomas,
On Wed, 06 Dec 2023 21:15:24 +0100, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 11 2023 at 20:16, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > With posted MSIs, end of interrupt is handled by the notification
> > handler. Each MSI handler does not go through local APIC IRR, ISR
> > processing. There's no need to do apic_eoi() in those handlers.
> >
> > Add a new acpi_ack_irq_no_eoi() for the posted MSI IR chip. At runtime
> > the call trace looks like:
> >
> > __sysvec_posted_msi_notification() {
> > irq_chip_ack_parent() {
> > apic_ack_irq_no_eoi();
> > }
>
> Huch? There is something missing here to make sense.
Good point, I was too focused on eoi. The trace should be like
* __sysvec_posted_msi_notification()
* irq_enter();
* handle_edge_irq()
* irq_chip_ack_parent()
* dummy(); // No EOI
* handle_irq_event()
* driver_handler()
* irq_enter();
* handle_edge_irq()
* irq_chip_ack_parent()
* dummy(); // No EOI
* handle_irq_event()
* driver_handler()
* irq_enter();
* handle_edge_irq()
* irq_chip_ack_parent()
* dummy(); // No EOI
* handle_irq_event()
* driver_handler()
* apic_eoi()
* irq_exit()
> > handle_irq_event() {
> > handle_irq_event_percpu() {
> > driver_handler()
> > }
> > }
> >
> > IO-APIC IR is excluded the from posted MSI, we need to make sure it
> > still performs EOI.
>
> We need to make the code correct and write changelogs which make
> sense. This sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> What has the IO-APIC to do with posted MSIs?
>
> It's a different interrupt chip hierarchy, no?
Right, I should not modify IOAPIC chip. Just assign posted IR chip to
device MSI/x.
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> > b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c index 00da6cf6b07d..ca398ee9075b 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> > @@ -1993,7 +1993,7 @@ static struct irq_chip ioapic_ir_chip
> > __read_mostly = { .irq_startup = startup_ioapic_irq,
> > .irq_mask = mask_ioapic_irq,
> > .irq_unmask = unmask_ioapic_irq,
> > - .irq_ack = irq_chip_ack_parent,
> > + .irq_ack = apic_ack_irq,
>
> Why?
ditto.
>
> > .irq_eoi = ioapic_ir_ack_level,
> > .irq_set_affinity = ioapic_set_affinity,
> > .irq_retrigger = irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy,
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/vector.c
> > b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/vector.c index 14fc33cfdb37..01223ac4f57a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/vector.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/vector.c
> > @@ -911,6 +911,11 @@ void apic_ack_irq(struct irq_data *irqd)
> > apic_eoi();
> > }
> >
> > +void apic_ack_irq_no_eoi(struct irq_data *irqd)
> > +{
> > + irq_move_irq(irqd);
> > +}
> > +
>
> The exact purpose of that function is to invoke irq_move_irq() which is
> a completely pointless exercise for interrupts which are remapped.
OK, I will replace this with a dummy .irq_ack() function.
Device MSIs do not have IRQD_SETAFFINITY_PENDING set.
Thanks,
Jacob
