On Fri, Nov 18 2022 at 10:18, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static int msi_insert_desc(struct device *dev, struct msi_desc *desc,
>> if (ret)
>> goto fail;
>>
>> - desc->msi_index = index;
>> + desc->msi_index = index - baseidx;
>
> Could msi_desc->msi_index be made bigger? The hardware I am testing
> on claims to support more IMS entries than what the u16 can
> accommodate.
Sure that's trivial. How big does it claim it is?
>> @@ -1476,9 +1476,10 @@ struct msi_map msi_domain_alloc_irq_at(struct device *dev, unsigned int domid, u
>> const struct irq_affinity_desc *affdesc,
>> union msi_dev_cookie *cookie)
>> {
>> + struct msi_ctrl ctrl = { .domid = domid, .nirqs = 1, };
>> + struct msi_domain_info *info;
>> struct irq_domain *domain;
>> struct msi_map map = { };
>> - struct msi_desc *desc;
>
> (*desc is still needed)
Yes, I figured that out later :)
> Thank you very much. With the above snippet it is possible to
> allocate an IMS IRQ. I am not yet able to use the IRQ and I am working
> on more tracing to figure out why. In the mean time, I did
> just try the pci_ims_alloc_irq()/pci_ims_free_irq() flow and
> pci_ims_free_irq() triggered the WARN below:
>
> remove_proc_entry: removing non-empty directory 'irq/220', leaking at least 'idxd-portal'
Hrm, that's the irq action directory. No idea why that is not torn down.
I assume your sequence is:
pci_ims_alloc();
request_irq(); <- This creates it
free_irq(); <- This removes it
pci_ims_free();
Right?
Thanks,
tglx
