LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>
To: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joro@8bytes.org, "Raj,
	Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc: 0x7f454c46@gmail.com,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] iommu/vt-d: Limit number of faults to clear in irq handler
Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 03:34:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1525314890.14025.38.camel@arista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5AEA70FD.1010209@linux.intel.com>

On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 10:16 +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 05/03/2018 09:59 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 09:32 +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 05/03/2018 08:52 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > > > AFAICS, we're doing fault-clearing in a loop inside irq
> > > > handler.
> > > > That means that while we're clearing if a fault raises, it'll
> > > > make
> > > > an irq level triggered (or on edge) on lapic. So, whenever we
> > > > return
> > > > from the irq handler, irq will raise again.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Uhm, double checked with the spec. Interrupts should be generated
> > > since we always clear the fault overflow bit.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, we can't clear faults in a limited loop, as the spec says
> > > in
> > > 7.3.1:
> > 
> > Mind to elaborate?
> > ITOW, I do not see a contradiction. We're still clearing faults in
> > FIFO
> > fashion. There is no limitation to do some spare work in between
> > clearings (return from interrupt, then fault again and continue).
> 
> Hardware maintains an internal index to reference the fault recording
> register in which the next fault can be recorded. When a fault comes,
> hardware will check the Fault bit (bit 31 of the 4th 32-bit register
> recording
> register) referenced by the internal index. If this bit is set,
> hardware will
> not record the fault.
> 
> Since we now don't clear the F bit until a register entry which has
> the F bit
> cleared, we might exit the fault handling with some register entries
> still
> have the F bit set.
> 
>   F
> > 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
> > 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
> > 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|  <--- Fault record index in fault status
> > register
> > 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
> > 1 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|  <--- hardware maintained index
> > 1 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
> > 1 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
> > 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
> > 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
> > 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
> > 0 |  xxxxxxxxxxxxx|
> 
> Take an example as above, hardware could only record 2 more faults
> with
> others all dropped.

Ugh, yeah, I got what you're saying.. Thanks for explanations.
So, we shouldn't mark faults as cleared until we've actually processed
them here:
:        writel(DMA_FSTS_PFO | DMA_FSTS_PPF | DMA_FSTS_PRO,
:               iommu->reg + DMAR_FSTS_REG);

As Joerg mentioned, we do care about latency here, so this fault work
can't be moved entirely into workqueue.. but we might limit loop and
check if we've hit the limit - to proceed servicing faults in a wq,
as in that case we should care about being too long in irq-disabled
section more than about latencies.
Does that makes any sense, what do you think?

I can possibly re-write 2/2 with idea above..
And it would be a bit joy to have 1/1 applied, as it's independent fix
and fixes an issue that happens for real on our devices, heh.

-- 
Thanks,
             Dmitry

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-05-03  2:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-31  0:33 [PATCHv4 1/2] iommu/vt-d: Ratelimit each dmar fault printing Dmitry Safonov
2018-03-31  0:33 ` [PATCHv4 2/2] iommu/vt-d: Limit number of faults to clear in irq handler Dmitry Safonov
2018-05-02  6:34   ` Lu Baolu
2018-05-02 12:38     ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-05-02 23:49       ` Lu Baolu
2018-05-03  0:52         ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-05-03  1:32           ` Lu Baolu
2018-05-03  1:59             ` Dmitry Safonov
2018-05-03  2:16               ` Lu Baolu
2018-05-03  2:32                 ` Lu Baolu
2018-05-03  2:34                 ` Dmitry Safonov [this message]
2018-05-03  2:44                   ` Lu Baolu
2018-05-02  2:22 ` [PATCHv4 1/2] iommu/vt-d: Ratelimit each dmar fault printing Dmitry Safonov
2018-05-03 12:40   ` Joerg Roedel
2018-05-03 16:12     ` Dmitry Safonov

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=1525314890.14025.38.camel@arista.com \
    --to=dima@arista.com \
    --cc=0x7f454c46@gmail.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
    --cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCHv4 2/2] iommu/vt-d: Limit number of faults to clear in irq handler' \
    /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

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).