LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
@ 2011-02-13 20:25 Micha Nelissen
  2011-02-14 12:34 ` Ingo Molnar
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Micha Nelissen @ 2011-02-13 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	Jesse Barnes, linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 53 bytes --]

Patch is based on earlier patch from Matthew Wilcox.

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Add-support-for-multiple-MSI-on-x86.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 14423 bytes --]

---
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c |  310 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c         |    2 +-
 drivers/pci/htirq.c            |    2 +-
 include/linux/irq.h            |    3 +-
 4 files changed, 271 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
index fadcd74..5e9decc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
@@ -249,11 +249,6 @@ static struct irq_cfg *alloc_irq_and_cfg_at(unsigned int at, int node)
 	return cfg;
 }
 
-static int alloc_irq_from(unsigned int from, int node)
-{
-	return irq_alloc_desc_from(from, node);
-}
-
 static void free_irq_at(unsigned int at, struct irq_cfg *cfg)
 {
 	free_irq_cfg(at, cfg);
@@ -1037,6 +1032,39 @@ void unlock_vector_lock(void)
 	raw_spin_unlock(&vector_lock);
 }
 
+/*
+ * The P6 family and Pentium processors (presumably also earlier processors),
+ * can queue no more than two interrupts per priority level, and will ignore
+ * other interrupts that are received within the same priority level (the
+ * priority level is the vector number shifted right by 4), so we try to
+ * spread these out a bit to avoid this happening.
+ *
+ * Pentium 4, Xeon and later processors do not have this limitation.
+ * It is unknown what limitations AMD, Cyrix, Transmeta, VIA, IDT and
+ * other manufacturers have.
+ */
+static int many_vectors_per_prio(void)
+{
+	struct cpuinfo_x86 *c;
+	static char init, result;
+	if (init)
+		return result;
+
+	c = &boot_cpu_data;
+	switch (c->x86_vendor) {
+	case X86_VENDOR_INTEL:
+		if (c->x86 > 6 ||
+		    ((c->x86 == 6) && (c->x86_model >= 13)))
+			result = 1;
+		break;
+	default:
+		break;
+	}
+
+	init = 1;
+	return result;
+}
+
 static int
 __assign_irq_vector(int irq, struct irq_cfg *cfg, const struct cpumask *mask)
 {
@@ -1117,13 +1145,110 @@ next:
 	return err;
 }
 
+static int __assign_irq_vector_block(int irq, unsigned count, const struct cpumask *mask)
+{
+	static int current_vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR;
+	unsigned int old_vector;
+	unsigned i, cpu;
+	int err;
+	struct irq_cfg *cfg;
+	cpumask_var_t tmp_mask;
+
+	BUG_ON(irq + count > NR_IRQS);
+	BUG_ON(count & (count - 1));
+
+	for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+		cfg = irq_cfg(irq + i);
+		if (cfg->move_in_progress)
+			return -EBUSY;
+	}
+
+	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp_mask, GFP_ATOMIC))
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
+	old_vector = cfg->vector;
+	if (old_vector) {
+		err = 0;
+		cpumask_and(tmp_mask, mask, cpu_online_mask);
+		cpumask_and(tmp_mask, cfg->domain, tmp_mask);
+		if (!cpumask_empty(tmp_mask))
+			goto out;
+	}
+
+	/* Only try and allocate irqs on cpus that are present */
+	err = -ENOSPC;
+	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, mask, cpu_online_mask) {
+		int new_cpu;
+		int vector;
+
+		apic->vector_allocation_domain(cpu, tmp_mask);
+
+		vector = current_vector & ~(count - 1);
+next:
+		vector += count;
+		if (vector + count >= first_system_vector) {
+			vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR & ~(count - 1);
+			if (vector < FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR)
+				vector += count;
+		}
+		if (unlikely((current_vector & ~(count - 1)) == vector))
+			continue;
+
+		for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
+			if (test_bit(vector + i, used_vectors))
+				goto next;
+
+		for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask) {
+			for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+				if (per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector + i] != -1)
+					goto next;
+			}
+		}
+		/* Found one! */
+		current_vector = vector + count - 1;
+		for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+			cfg = irq_cfg(irq + i);
+			if (old_vector) {
+				cfg->move_in_progress = 1;
+				cpumask_copy(cfg->old_domain, cfg->domain);
+			}
+			for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask)
+				per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector + i] = irq + i;
+			cfg->vector = vector + i;
+			cpumask_copy(cfg->domain, tmp_mask);
+		}
+		err = 0;
+		break;
+	}
+out:
+	free_cpumask_var(tmp_mask);
+	return err;
+}
+
 int assign_irq_vector(int irq, struct irq_cfg *cfg, const struct cpumask *mask)
 {
 	int err;
 	unsigned long flags;
 
 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&vector_lock, flags);
-	err = __assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, mask);
+	if (many_vectors_per_prio())
+		err = __assign_irq_vector_block(irq, 1, mask);
+	else
+		err = __assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, mask);
+	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vector_lock, flags);
+	return err;
+}
+
+/* Assumes that count is a power of two and aligns to that power of two */
+static int
+assign_irq_vector_block(int irq, unsigned count, const struct cpumask *mask)
+{
+	int err;
+	unsigned long flags;
+
+	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&vector_lock, flags);
+	err = __assign_irq_vector_block(irq, count, mask);
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vector_lock, flags);
 	return err;
 }
@@ -2200,14 +2325,34 @@ int __ioapic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask,
 			  unsigned int *dest_id)
 {
 	struct irq_cfg *cfg = data->chip_data;
+	unsigned irq;
 
 	if (!cpumask_intersects(mask, cpu_online_mask))
 		return -1;
 
-	if (assign_irq_vector(data->irq, data->chip_data, mask))
-		return -1;
+	irq = data->irq;
+	cfg = data->chip_data;
 
-	cpumask_copy(data->affinity, mask);
+	if (many_vectors_per_prio()) {
+		struct msi_desc *msi_desc = data->msi_desc;
+		unsigned i, count = 1;
+
+		if (msi_desc)
+			count = 1 << msi_desc->msi_attrib.multiple;
+
+		/* Multiple MSIs all go to the same destination */
+		if (assign_irq_vector_block(irq, count, mask))
+			return -1;
+		for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+			data = &irq_to_desc(irq + i)->irq_data;
+			cpumask_copy(data->affinity, mask);
+		}
+	} else {
+		if (assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, mask))
+			return BAD_APICID;
+
+		cpumask_copy(data->affinity, mask);
+	}
 
 	*dest_id = apic->cpu_mask_to_apicid_and(mask, cfg->domain);
 	return 0;
@@ -3053,7 +3198,7 @@ device_initcall(ioapic_init_sysfs);
 /*
  * Dynamic irq allocate and deallocation
  */
-unsigned int create_irq_nr(unsigned int from, int node)
+unsigned int create_irq_nr(unsigned int from, unsigned count, int node)
 {
 	struct irq_cfg *cfg;
 	unsigned long flags;
@@ -3063,25 +3208,31 @@ unsigned int create_irq_nr(unsigned int from, int node)
 	if (from < nr_irqs_gsi)
 		from = nr_irqs_gsi;
 
-	irq = alloc_irq_from(from, node);
+	irq = irq_alloc_descs(-1, from, count, node);
 	if (irq < 0)
 		return 0;
 	cfg = alloc_irq_cfg(irq, node);
 	if (!cfg) {
-		free_irq_at(irq, NULL);
+		irq_free_descs(irq, count);
 		return 0;
 	}
 
 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&vector_lock, flags);
-	if (!__assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus()))
-		ret = irq;
+	if (many_vectors_per_prio()) {
+		if (!__assign_irq_vector_block(irq, count, apic->target_cpus()))
+			ret = irq;
+	} else {
+		if (!__assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus()))
+			ret = irq;
+	}
 	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vector_lock, flags);
 
 	if (ret) {
 		set_irq_chip_data(irq, cfg);
 		irq_clear_status_flags(irq, IRQ_NOREQUEST);
 	} else {
-		free_irq_at(irq, cfg);
+		free_irq_cfg(irq, cfg);
+		irq_free_descs(irq, count);
 	}
 	return ret;
 }
@@ -3093,7 +3244,7 @@ int create_irq(void)
 	int irq;
 
 	irq_want = nr_irqs_gsi;
-	irq = create_irq_nr(irq_want, node);
+	irq = create_irq_nr(irq_want, 1, node);
 
 	if (irq == 0)
 		irq = -1;
@@ -3121,7 +3272,7 @@ void destroy_irq(unsigned int irq)
  */
 #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI
 static int msi_compose_msg(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int irq,
-			   struct msi_msg *msg, u8 hpet_id)
+			   unsigned count, struct msi_msg *msg, u8 hpet_id)
 {
 	struct irq_cfg *cfg;
 	int err;
@@ -3131,7 +3282,10 @@ static int msi_compose_msg(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int irq,
 		return -ENXIO;
 
 	cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
-	err = assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus());
+	if (count == 1)
+		err = assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus());
+	else
+		err = assign_irq_vector_block(irq, count, apic->target_cpus());
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
@@ -3307,47 +3461,99 @@ static int msi_alloc_irte(struct pci_dev *dev, int irq, int nvec)
 	return index;
 }
 
-static int setup_msi_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msi_desc *msidesc, int irq)
+static int setup_msi_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, struct msi_desc *msidesc,
+			 unsigned count, int base_irq)
 {
 	struct msi_msg msg;
+	unsigned irq;
 	int ret;
 
-	ret = msi_compose_msg(dev, irq, &msg, -1);
+	ret = msi_compose_msg(dev, base_irq, count, &msg, -1);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		return ret;
 
-	set_irq_msi(irq, msidesc);
-	write_msi_msg(irq, &msg);
+	msidesc->msi_attrib.multiple = order_base_2(count);
 
-	if (irq_remapped(get_irq_chip_data(irq))) {
-		irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_MOVE_PCNTXT);
-		set_irq_chip_and_handler_name(irq, &msi_ir_chip, handle_edge_irq, "edge");
-	} else
-		set_irq_chip_and_handler_name(irq, &msi_chip, handle_edge_irq, "edge");
+	/* perform loop backwards, so first irq has msidesc set */
+	for (irq = base_irq + count - 1; irq >= base_irq; irq--) {
+		set_irq_msi(irq, msidesc);
+		if (irq_remapped(get_irq_chip_data(irq))) {
+			irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_MOVE_PCNTXT);
+			set_irq_chip_and_handler_name(irq, &msi_ir_chip, handle_edge_irq, "edge");
+		} else
+			set_irq_chip_and_handler_name(irq, &msi_chip, handle_edge_irq, "edge");
+	}
 
-	dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &dev->dev, "irq %d for MSI/MSI-X\n", irq);
+	write_msi_msg(base_irq, &msg);
+	dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, &dev->dev, "irq %d-%d for MSI/MSI-X\n",
+		base_irq, base_irq + count - 1);
 
 	return 0;
 }
 
-int native_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type)
+static int setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec)
+{
+	unsigned base_irq, alloc, i;
+	int ret, node;
+	struct msi_desc *msidesc = list_first_entry(&dev->msi_list,
+							struct msi_desc, list);
+	struct intel_iommu *iommu = map_dev_to_ir(dev);
+
+	if (intr_remapping_enabled && !iommu)
+		return -ENOENT;
+	if (nvec > 1 && !many_vectors_per_prio())
+		return 1;
+
+	/*
+	 * MSI only lets you program the device with nvec that is a power
+	 * of two.  We could possibly trust the device driver that it'll
+	 * only use the number it asked for, but to be safe, let's reserve
+	 * all the interrupts we're telling the device it can use.
+	 */
+	alloc = roundup_pow_of_two(nvec);
+	node = dev_to_node(&dev->dev);
+	base_irq = create_irq_nr(nr_irqs_gsi, alloc, node);
+	if (base_irq == 0)
+		return (alloc > 1) ? alloc / 2 : -ENOSPC;
+
+	if (intr_remapping_enabled) {
+		ret = msi_alloc_irte(dev, base_irq, alloc);
+		if (ret < 0)
+			goto error;
+
+		for (i = 1; i < alloc; i++)
+			set_irte_irq(base_irq + i, iommu, ret, i);
+	}
+
+	ret = setup_msi_irq(dev, msidesc, alloc, base_irq);
+	if (ret < 0)
+		goto error;
+
+	return 0;
+
+error:
+	for (i = 0; i < alloc; i++)
+		destroy_irq(base_irq + i);
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static int setup_msix_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec)
 {
 	int node, ret, sub_handle, index = 0;
+	struct intel_iommu *iommu = map_dev_to_ir(dev);
 	unsigned int irq, irq_want;
 	struct msi_desc *msidesc;
-	struct intel_iommu *iommu = NULL;
 
-	/* x86 doesn't support multiple MSI yet */
-	if (type == PCI_CAP_ID_MSI && nvec > 1)
-		return 1;
+	if (intr_remapping_enabled && !iommu)
+		return -ENOENT;
 
 	node = dev_to_node(&dev->dev);
 	irq_want = nr_irqs_gsi;
 	sub_handle = 0;
 	list_for_each_entry(msidesc, &dev->msi_list, list) {
-		irq = create_irq_nr(irq_want, node);
+		irq = create_irq_nr(irq_want, 1, node);
 		if (irq == 0)
-			return -1;
+			return -ENOSPC;
 		irq_want = irq + 1;
 		if (!intr_remapping_enabled)
 			goto no_ir;
@@ -3363,11 +3569,6 @@ int native_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type)
 				goto error;
 			}
 		} else {
-			iommu = map_dev_to_ir(dev);
-			if (!iommu) {
-				ret = -ENOENT;
-				goto error;
-			}
 			/*
 			 * setup the mapping between the irq and the IRTE
 			 * base index, the sub_handle pointing to the
@@ -3376,7 +3577,7 @@ int native_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type)
 			set_irte_irq(irq, iommu, index, sub_handle);
 		}
 no_ir:
-		ret = setup_msi_irq(dev, msidesc, irq);
+		ret = setup_msi_irq(dev, msidesc, 1, irq);
 		if (ret < 0)
 			goto error;
 		sub_handle++;
@@ -3388,11 +3589,34 @@ error:
 	return ret;
 }
 
+int native_setup_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev, int nvec, int type)
+{
+	if (type == PCI_CAP_ID_MSI) {
+		return setup_msi_irqs(dev, nvec);
+	} else {
+		return setup_msix_irqs(dev, nvec);
+	}
+}
+
 void native_teardown_msi_irq(unsigned int irq)
 {
 	destroy_irq(irq);
 }
 
+void native_teardown_msi_irqs(struct pci_dev *dev)
+{
+	struct msi_desc *desc;
+	unsigned i;
+
+	list_for_each_entry(desc, &dev->msi_list, list) {
+		if (desc->irq == 0)
+			continue;
+		for (i = 0; i < (1 << desc->msi_attrib.multiple); i++) {
+			destroy_irq(desc->irq + i);
+		}
+	}
+}
+
 #if defined (CONFIG_DMAR) || defined (CONFIG_INTR_REMAP)
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 static int
@@ -3437,7 +3661,7 @@ int arch_setup_dmar_msi(unsigned int irq)
 	int ret;
 	struct msi_msg msg;
 
-	ret = msi_compose_msg(NULL, irq, &msg, -1);
+	ret = msi_compose_msg(NULL, irq, 1, &msg, -1);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		return ret;
 	dmar_msi_write(irq, &msg);
@@ -3515,7 +3739,7 @@ int arch_setup_hpet_msi(unsigned int irq, unsigned int id)
 			return -1;
 	}
 
-	ret = msi_compose_msg(NULL, irq, &msg, id);
+	ret = msi_compose_msg(NULL, irq, 1, &msg, id);
 	if (ret < 0)
 		return ret;
 
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
index 4ff5968..cce3afd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
@@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ static int hpet_assign_irq(struct hpet_dev *dev)
 {
 	unsigned int irq;
 
-	irq = create_irq_nr(0, -1);
+	irq = create_irq_nr(0, 1, -1);
 	if (!irq)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
diff --git a/drivers/pci/htirq.c b/drivers/pci/htirq.c
index 834842a..2b48cc3 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/htirq.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/htirq.c
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ int __ht_create_irq(struct pci_dev *dev, int idx, ht_irq_update_t *update)
 	cfg->msg.address_hi = 0xffffffff;
 
 	node = dev_to_node(&dev->dev);
-	irq = create_irq_nr(0, node);
+	irq = create_irq_nr(0, 1, node);
 
 	if (irq <= 0) {
 		kfree(cfg);
diff --git a/include/linux/irq.h b/include/linux/irq.h
index abde252..842a8c4 100644
--- a/include/linux/irq.h
+++ b/include/linux/irq.h
@@ -322,7 +322,8 @@ static inline void set_irq_probe(unsigned int irq)
 }
 
 /* Handle dynamic irq creation and destruction */
-extern unsigned int create_irq_nr(unsigned int irq_want, int node);
+extern unsigned int create_irq_nr(unsigned int irq_want, unsigned count,
+				  int node);
 extern int create_irq(void);
 extern void destroy_irq(unsigned int irq);
 
-- 
1.5.6.5


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-02-13 20:25 [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86 Micha Nelissen
@ 2011-02-14 12:34 ` Ingo Molnar
  2011-02-14 19:47   ` Micha Nelissen
  2011-02-14 20:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
  2011-03-04 18:36 ` Jesse Barnes
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2011-02-14 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Micha Nelissen
  Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	Jesse Barnes, linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox


* Micha Nelissen <micha@neli.hopto.org> wrote:

> Patch is based on earlier patch from Matthew Wilcox.

Hm, there's an awful lot of 'background', 'implementation', 'advantages', 
'disadvantages', 'testing' description missing.

Thanks,

	Ingo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-02-14 12:34 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2011-02-14 19:47   ` Micha Nelissen
  2011-02-15  2:38     ` Ingo Molnar
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Micha Nelissen @ 2011-02-14 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar
  Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	Jesse Barnes, linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Micha Nelissen <micha@neli.hopto.org> wrote:
>> Patch is based on earlier patch from Matthew Wilcox.
> 
> Hm, there's an awful lot of 'background', 'implementation', 'advantages', 
> 'disadvantages', 'testing' description missing.

Sorry, my bad, wrong assumption that this would be common knowledge.

PCI devices interrupt the CPU using 'legacy' INTx; or PCI-e devices can 
do a special write, called an MSI (message signaled interrupt). The 
interrupt vector is chosen by the CPU, different devices use different 
vectors so that software can keep the interrupt sources separate 
(instead of using shared INTx "lines").

Most PCI-e devices support what's called MSI-X, but not all do. 
Especially for FPGA based endpoints it's easier to implement only 
'regular' MSI support. MSI-X basically involves implementing a lookup 
table that maps interrupt types in the device to interrupt vectors for 
the CPU. 'Regular' MSI (non MSI-X) only supports a contiguous block of 
interrupt vectors: a base vector with a vector count (which is a power 
of 2).

The x86 code to allocate these interrupt vectors does not handle the <> 
1 vector count case; it would return that it could only handle 1. So 
either device drivers had 1 MSI, or the device should support MSI-X to 
have multiple interrupts (and handlers) for one device.

This patch adds the needed code to support multiple MSI per device.

Advantages: separate interrupt handlers for separate tasks in the 
device. This allows device drivers to be better structured. Easy 
'diagnostics' due to /proc/interrupts counting number of interrupts for 
separate functionality separately.

Disadvantages: more complex code due to requirement that it is a 
contiguous block, so needs some effort to look for a free block with the 
requested count.

Tested: on an Atom platform, with a Xilinx based PCI-e core in FPGA.

Please review; thanks,

Micha

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-02-13 20:25 [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86 Micha Nelissen
  2011-02-14 12:34 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2011-02-14 20:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
  2011-03-04 18:37   ` Jesse Barnes
  2011-06-17 17:12   ` Matthew Wilcox
  2011-03-04 18:36 ` Jesse Barnes
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2011-02-14 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Micha Nelissen
  Cc: Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86, Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	Jesse Barnes, linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Micha Nelissen wrote:

> Patch is based on earlier patch from Matthew Wilcox.

Please do not attach patches. Send them inline.

> +/*
> + * The P6 family and Pentium processors (presumably also earlier processors),
> + * can queue no more than two interrupts per priority level, and will ignore
> + * other interrupts that are received within the same priority level (the
> + * priority level is the vector number shifted right by 4), so we try to
> + * spread these out a bit to avoid this happening.
> + *
> + * Pentium 4, Xeon and later processors do not have this limitation.
> + * It is unknown what limitations AMD, Cyrix, Transmeta, VIA, IDT and
> + * other manufacturers have.
> + */
> +static int many_vectors_per_prio(void)
> +{
> +	struct cpuinfo_x86 *c;
> +	static char init, result;

  char ? bool if at all. Same for the function itself

  And this should go into one of the alreay existing cpu checks and
  set a software feature flag and not hack another weird instance of
  cpu model checking into the code.

> +	if (init)
> +		return result;
> +
> +	c = &boot_cpu_data;
> +	switch (c->x86_vendor) {
> +	case X86_VENDOR_INTEL:
> +		if (c->x86 > 6 ||
> +		    ((c->x86 == 6) && (c->x86_model >= 13)))
> +			result = 1;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		break;
> +	}
> +
> +	init = 1;
> +	return result;
> +}
 
> +static int __assign_irq_vector_block(int irq, unsigned count, const struct cpumask *mask)
> +{
> +	static int current_vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR;

static ? What the hell is this for ?

> +	unsigned int old_vector;
> +	unsigned i, cpu;
> +	int err;
> +	struct irq_cfg *cfg;
> +	cpumask_var_t tmp_mask;
> +
> +	BUG_ON(irq + count > NR_IRQS);

Why BUG if you can bail out with an error code ?

> +	BUG_ON(count & (count - 1));

Ditto

> +	for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> +		cfg = irq_cfg(irq + i);
> +		if (cfg->move_in_progress)
> +			return -EBUSY;
> +	}

What's this check for and why do we return EBUSY ? 

> +	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp_mask, GFP_ATOMIC))
> +		return -ENOMEM;

No way. We went great length to make this code do GFP_KERNEL
allocations.

> +	cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
> +	old_vector = cfg->vector;
> +	if (old_vector) {
> +		err = 0;
> +		cpumask_and(tmp_mask, mask, cpu_online_mask);
> +		cpumask_and(tmp_mask, cfg->domain, tmp_mask);
> +		if (!cpumask_empty(tmp_mask))
> +			goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Only try and allocate irqs on cpus that are present */
> +	err = -ENOSPC;
> +	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, mask, cpu_online_mask) {

No, we don't want to iterate over the world and some more with
vector_lock held and interrupts disabled

> +		int new_cpu;
> +		int vector;
> +
> +		apic->vector_allocation_domain(cpu, tmp_mask);
> +
> +		vector = current_vector & ~(count - 1);
> +next:
> +		vector > += count;
> +		if (vector > + count >= first_system_vector) {
> +			vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR & ~(count - 1);
> +			if (vector < FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR)
> +				vector > += count;
> +		}
> +		if (unlikely((current_vector & ~(count - 1)) == vector))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		for (i = 0; i < count; i> +> +)
> +			if (test_bit(vector > + i, used_vectors))
> +				goto next;
> +
> +		for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask) {
> +			for (i = 0; i < count; i> +> +) {
> +				if (per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector > + i] != -1)
> +					goto next;
> +			}
> +		}

Yikes, loop in a loop ??? With interrupts disabled? Imagine what that
means on a machine with 1k cores.

> +		/* Found one! */
> +		current_vector = vector > + count - 1;
> +		for (i = 0; i < count; i> +> +) {
> +			cfg = irq_cfg(irq > + i);
> +			if (old_vector) {
> +				cfg->move_in_progress = 1;
> +				cpumask_copy(cfg->old_domain, cfg->domain);
> +			}
> +			for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask)
> +				per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector + i] = irq + i;

And some more .....

> +			cfg->vector = vector > + i;
> +			cpumask_copy(cfg->domain, tmp_mask);
> +		}
> +		err = 0;
> +		break;
> +	}
> +out:
> +	free_cpumask_var(tmp_mask);
> +	return err;
> +}
> +

> +/* Assumes that count is a power of two and aligns to that power of two */

If it assumes that, it'd better check it

> +static int
> +assign_irq_vector_block(int irq, unsigned count, const struct cpumask *mask)

> @@ -2200,14 +2325,34 @@ int __ioapic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask,
>  			  unsigned int *dest_id)
>  {
>  	struct irq_cfg *cfg = data->chip_data;
> +	unsigned irq;
>  
>  	if (!cpumask_intersects(mask, cpu_online_mask))
>  		return -1;
>  
> -	if (assign_irq_vector(data->irq, data->chip_data, mask))
> -		return -1;
> +	irq = data->irq;
> +	cfg = data->chip_data;

Assign it again ?
  
> -	cpumask_copy(data->affinity, mask);
> +	if (many_vectors_per_prio()) {
> +		struct msi_desc *msi_desc = data->msi_desc;
> +		unsigned i, count = 1;
> +
> +		if (msi_desc)
> +			count = 1 << msi_desc->msi_attrib.multiple;
> +
> +		/* Multiple MSIs all go to the same destination */
> +		if (assign_irq_vector_block(irq, count, mask))
> +			return -1;
> +		for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> +			data = &irq_to_desc(irq + i)->irq_data;
> +			cpumask_copy(data->affinity, mask);
> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		if (assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, mask))
> +			return BAD_APICID;

So BAD_APICID is equivalent to -1 ?

> +
> +		cpumask_copy(data->affinity, mask);
> +	}
>  
>  	*dest_id = apic->cpu_mask_to_apicid_and(mask, cfg->domain);
>  	return 0;

@@ -3121,7 +3272,7 @@ void destroy_irq(unsigned int irq)
  */
 #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI
 static int msi_compose_msg(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int irq,
-			   struct msi_msg *msg, u8 hpet_id)
+			   unsigned count, struct msi_msg *msg, u8 hpet_id)
 {
 	struct irq_cfg *cfg;
 	int err;
@@ -3131,7 +3282,10 @@ static int msi_compose_msg(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int irq,
 		return -ENXIO;
 
 	cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
-	err = assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus());
+	if (count == 1)
+		err = assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus());
+	else
+		err = assign_irq_vector_block(irq, count, apic->target_cpus());

WTF? We have already changed the function to take a count argument,
why don't we propagate that all the way through instead of having 

    if (bla == 1)
        assign_irq_vector();
    else
	assign_irq_vector_block();

all over the place ?

> diff --git a/include/linux/irq.h b/include/linux/irq.h
> index abde252..842a8c4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/irq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/irq.h
> @@ -322,7 +322,8 @@ static inline void set_irq_probe(unsigned int irq)
>  }
>  
>  /* Handle dynamic irq creation and destruction */
> -extern unsigned int create_irq_nr(unsigned int irq_want, int node);
> +extern unsigned int create_irq_nr(unsigned int irq_want, unsigned count,
> +				  int node);

And you think that compiles on anything else than with your .config ?

Sigh, this whole thing is total clusterf*ck.

The main horror is definitely not your fault. MSI is just broken.

Though I can understand why you want to implement this, but that does
not work that way at all.

1) Do not change global (non arch specific) interfaces when you do not
   fixup everything in one go. That does not work.

2) Provide a fine grained series of patches, which changes one thing
   each instead of a completely unrewieable monster patch

3) This needs a completely different approach:

   We can't do multivector MSI in a sensible way on x86. So instead of
   trying to fix that for your problem at hand, simply do the
   following:

   Implement a demultiplexing interrupt controller for your device.
   That needs one vector, works out of the box and the demux handler
   looks at the interrupt source and invokes the sub handlers via
   generic_handle_irq(irq_sub_source). You get all the usual stuff
   /proc/interrupts, separate request_irq() .....

Thanks,

	tglx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-02-14 19:47   ` Micha Nelissen
@ 2011-02-15  2:38     ` Ingo Molnar
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2011-02-15  2:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Micha Nelissen
  Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	Jesse Barnes, linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox,
	Eric W. Biederman, Yinghai Lu, Suresh Siddha, Arjan van de Ven,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk, Stefano Stabellini, Ben Hutchings,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge


* Micha Nelissen <micha@neli.hopto.org> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Micha Nelissen <micha@neli.hopto.org> wrote:
> >>Patch is based on earlier patch from Matthew Wilcox.
> >
> >Hm, there's an awful lot of 'background', 'implementation',
> >'advantages', 'disadvantages', 'testing' description missing.
> 
> Sorry, my bad, wrong assumption that this would be common knowledge.

When it comes to changes done to a kernel tree used by millions of people then 
common knowledge and mundane details need to be written down, in painstaking detail.

You cannot really err when it comes to details: i've reviewed over a ten thousand 
patches in my life and i've yet to see a single one where the description was too 
verbose ;-)

> PCI devices interrupt the CPU using 'legacy' INTx; or PCI-e devices
> can do a special write, called an MSI (message signaled interrupt).
> The interrupt vector is chosen by the CPU, different devices use
> different vectors so that software can keep the interrupt sources
> separate (instead of using shared INTx "lines").
> 
> Most PCI-e devices support what's called MSI-X, but not all do.
> Especially for FPGA based endpoints it's easier to implement only
> 'regular' MSI support. MSI-X basically involves implementing a
> lookup table that maps interrupt types in the device to interrupt
> vectors for the CPU. 'Regular' MSI (non MSI-X) only supports a
> contiguous block of interrupt vectors: a base vector with a vector
> count (which is a power of 2).
> 
> The x86 code to allocate these interrupt vectors does not handle the
> <> 1 vector count case; it would return that it could only handle 1.
> So either device drivers had 1 MSI, or the device should support
> MSI-X to have multiple interrupts (and handlers) for one device.
> 
> This patch adds the needed code to support multiple MSI per device.
> 
> Advantages: separate interrupt handlers for separate tasks in the
> device. This allows device drivers to be better structured. Easy
> 'diagnostics' due to /proc/interrupts counting number of interrupts
> for separate functionality separately.
> 
> Disadvantages: more complex code due to requirement that it is a
> contiguous block, so needs some effort to look for a free block with
> the requested count.
> 
> Tested: on an Atom platform, with a Xilinx based PCI-e core in FPGA.
> 
> Please review; thanks,

That was a good description, thanks Micha!

	Ingo

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-02-13 20:25 [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86 Micha Nelissen
  2011-02-14 12:34 ` Ingo Molnar
  2011-02-14 20:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
@ 2011-03-04 18:36 ` Jesse Barnes
  2011-03-04 19:53   ` Micha Nelissen
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Jesse Barnes @ 2011-03-04 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Micha Nelissen
  Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:25:21 +0100
Micha Nelissen <micha@neli.hopto.org> wrote:

> Patch is based on earlier patch from Matthew Wilcox.

I like this before when Matthew was working on it too; Matthew can you
give it a look?  I'd have to dig through the archives to see why we
didn't apply it before (maybe lack of device support?  if so, it sounds
like this patch addresses that issue, since Micha has a device in mind).

Thanks,
-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-02-14 20:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
@ 2011-03-04 18:37   ` Jesse Barnes
  2011-06-17 17:12   ` Matthew Wilcox
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Jesse Barnes @ 2011-03-04 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Thomas Gleixner
  Cc: Micha Nelissen, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:55:33 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> 
> > Patch is based on earlier patch from Matthew Wilcox.
> 
> Please do not attach patches. Send them inline.

(I assume you're looking at Thomas's feedback as well...)

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-03-04 18:36 ` Jesse Barnes
@ 2011-03-04 19:53   ` Micha Nelissen
  2011-03-08 21:05     ` Thomas Gleixner
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Micha Nelissen @ 2011-03-04 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jesse Barnes
  Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:25:21 +0100
> Micha Nelissen <micha@neli.hopto.org> wrote:
> 
>> Patch is based on earlier patch from Matthew Wilcox.
> 
> I like this before when Matthew was working on it too

If I understood Thomas' concerns well, it sounds like this feature is 
inherently incompatible with big SMP systems. Therefore it has no chance 
of ever being accepted into mainline in whatever form?

Micha

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-03-04 19:53   ` Micha Nelissen
@ 2011-03-08 21:05     ` Thomas Gleixner
       [not found]       ` <35bd5f56-658b-48e3-a376-b07350a29cf6@email.android.com>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2011-03-08 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Micha Nelissen
  Cc: Jesse Barnes, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:25:21 +0100
> > Micha Nelissen <micha@neli.hopto.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Patch is based on earlier patch from Matthew Wilcox.
> > 
> > I like this before when Matthew was working on it too
> 
> If I understood Thomas' concerns well, it sounds like this feature is
> inherently incompatible with big SMP systems. Therefore it has no chance of
> ever being accepted into mainline in whatever form?

First of all MSI is replaced by MSI-X which does not have the
shortcomings of MSI vs. the vector allocation.

Though if we can come up with a scheme which does not create nested
loops over possibly hundreds of CPUs with interrupts disabled and
global locks held, I have no objections.

One possible solution would be to reserve a block of vectors on all
cpus at boot time via a command line option for MSI block
allocations. That would simply use a bitmap protected by a mutex to
lookup a free vector space. That would avoid the whole loop issue and
work for most of the systems which need to deal with such MSI multi
vector devices. Warning: Just an idea :)

Thanks,

	tglx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
       [not found]       ` <35bd5f56-658b-48e3-a376-b07350a29cf6@email.android.com>
@ 2011-03-08 21:16         ` Thomas Gleixner
       [not found]           ` <71ed11a4-aff7-4eb6-b037-0e097bb96444@email.android.com>
  2011-03-10  2:05           ` Roland Dreier
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2011-03-08 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: H. Peter Anvin
  Cc: Micha Nelissen, Jesse Barnes, Ingo Molnar, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Yes, but there are MSI devices in the field...

And the point is?

> -- 
> Sent from my mobile phone. Please pardon any lack of formatting.

That does not make an excuse for lack of content and context :)

Thanks,

	tglx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
       [not found]           ` <71ed11a4-aff7-4eb6-b037-0e097bb96444@email.android.com>
@ 2011-03-08 22:13             ` Thomas Gleixner
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2011-03-08 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: H. Peter Anvin
  Cc: Micha Nelissen, Jesse Barnes, Ingo Molnar, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> You said MSI-X has replaced MSI, which is true of course but doesn't
> change older devices in the field.

I know, but not for the price of nested loops over nr of cpus with
locks held and interrupts disabled implemented with a metric sh*tload
of horrible code.

Thanks,

	tglx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-03-08 21:16         ` Thomas Gleixner
       [not found]           ` <71ed11a4-aff7-4eb6-b037-0e097bb96444@email.android.com>
@ 2011-03-10  2:05           ` Roland Dreier
  2011-03-10 15:33             ` Clemens Ladisch
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Roland Dreier @ 2011-03-10  2:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: H. Peter Anvin
  Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Micha Nelissen, Jesse Barnes, Ingo Molnar, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

> Yes, but there are MSI devices in the field...

But do any of them benefit from having multiple interrupt vectors available?

If I recall correct, willy was motivated by AHCI performance to try this out,
and in the end things didn't go any faster using multiple MSI.

The big win with multiple interrupt vectors is when you have independent
queues that you can point different CPUs at, and give each CPU its own
interrupt.  And that type of hardware is pretty certain to support MSI-X.

 - R.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-03-10  2:05           ` Roland Dreier
@ 2011-03-10 15:33             ` Clemens Ladisch
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Clemens Ladisch @ 2011-03-10 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Roland Dreier
  Cc: H. Peter Anvin, Thomas Gleixner, Micha Nelissen, Jesse Barnes,
	Ingo Molnar, x86, Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	linux-kernel, linux-pci, Matthew Wilcox

Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Yes, but there are MSI devices in the field...
> 
> But do any of them benefit from having multiple interrupt vectors available?
> 
> If I recall correct, willy was motivated by AHCI performance to try this out,
> and in the end things didn't go any faster using multiple MSI.
> 
> The big win with multiple interrupt vectors is when you have independent
> queues that you can point different CPUs at, and give each CPU its own
> interrupt.

And this is how AHCI is designed, but libahci.c currently wraps its
interrupt handler in a device-wide lock.  I don't know if that test also
reorganized the driver code.


Regards,
Clemens

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86
  2011-02-14 20:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
  2011-03-04 18:37   ` Jesse Barnes
@ 2011-06-17 17:12   ` Matthew Wilcox
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Wilcox @ 2011-06-17 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Thomas Gleixner
  Cc: Micha Nelissen, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi (Venki),
	Jesse Barnes, linux-kernel, linux-pci


Sorry, I missed this the first time through ... I've just been poked about it.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 09:55:33PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> > +static int __assign_irq_vector_block(int irq, unsigned count, const struct cpumask *mask)
> > +{
> > +	static int current_vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR;
> 
> static ? What the hell is this for ?

You should probably have taken a look at __assign_irq_vector before
jumping in with the 'wth's.  It's heavily based on that.

> > +	unsigned int old_vector;
> > +	unsigned i, cpu;
> > +	int err;
> > +	struct irq_cfg *cfg;
> > +	cpumask_var_t tmp_mask;
> > +
> > +	BUG_ON(irq + count > NR_IRQS);
> 
> Why BUG if you can bail out with an error code ?
> 
> > +	BUG_ON(count & (count - 1));
> 
> Ditto

These should both have been taken care of by the caller.  So they are
genuine bugs if they happen.

> > +	for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > +		cfg = irq_cfg(irq + i);
> > +		if (cfg->move_in_progress)
> > +			return -EBUSY;
> > +	}
> 
> What's this check for and why do we return EBUSY ? 

Ask the author of __assign_irq_vector

> > +	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp_mask, GFP_ATOMIC))
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> No way. We went great length to make this code do GFP_KERNEL
> allocations.

No.  No, you didn't.  Fix __assign_irq_vector, and we can talk.

> > +	cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
> > +	old_vector = cfg->vector;
> > +	if (old_vector) {
> > +		err = 0;
> > +		cpumask_and(tmp_mask, mask, cpu_online_mask);
> > +		cpumask_and(tmp_mask, cfg->domain, tmp_mask);
> > +		if (!cpumask_empty(tmp_mask))
> > +			goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Only try and allocate irqs on cpus that are present */
> > +	err = -ENOSPC;
> > +	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, mask, cpu_online_mask) {
> 
> No, we don't want to iterate over the world and some more with
> vector_lock held and interrupts disabled

... see __assign_irq_vector again.

> > +		int new_cpu;
> > +		int vector;
> > +
> > +		apic->vector_allocation_domain(cpu, tmp_mask);
> > +
> > +		vector = current_vector & ~(count - 1);
> > +next:
> > +		vector > += count;
> > +		if (vector > + count >= first_system_vector) {
> > +			vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR & ~(count - 1);
> > +			if (vector < FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR)
> > +				vector > += count;
> > +		}
> > +		if (unlikely((current_vector & ~(count - 1)) == vector))
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		for (i = 0; i < count; i> +> +)
> > +			if (test_bit(vector > + i, used_vectors))
> > +				goto next;
> > +
> > +		for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask) {
> > +			for (i = 0; i < count; i> +> +) {
> > +				if (per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector > + i] != -1)
> > +					goto next;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> 
> Yikes, loop in a loop ??? With interrupts disabled? Imagine what that
> means on a machine with 1k cores.

It's a very short inner loop.  MSI is limited to 32 interrupts.

> > +		/* Found one! */
> > +		current_vector = vector > + count - 1;
> > +		for (i = 0; i < count; i> +> +) {
> > +			cfg = irq_cfg(irq > + i);
> > +			if (old_vector) {
> > +				cfg->move_in_progress = 1;
> > +				cpumask_copy(cfg->old_domain, cfg->domain);
> > +			}
> > +			for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask)
> > +				per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector + i] = irq + i;
> 
> And some more .....
> 
> > +			cfg->vector = vector > + i;
> > +			cpumask_copy(cfg->domain, tmp_mask);
> > +		}
> > +		err = 0;
> > +		break;
> > +	}
> > +out:
> > +	free_cpumask_var(tmp_mask);
> > +	return err;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> > +/* Assumes that count is a power of two and aligns to that power of two */
> 
> If it assumes that, it'd better check it

Um ... see the BUG_ON above that you complained about ...

> @@ -3121,7 +3272,7 @@ void destroy_irq(unsigned int irq)
>   */
>  #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI
>  static int msi_compose_msg(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int irq,
> -			   struct msi_msg *msg, u8 hpet_id)
> +			   unsigned count, struct msi_msg *msg, u8 hpet_id)
>  {
>  	struct irq_cfg *cfg;
>  	int err;
> @@ -3131,7 +3282,10 @@ static int msi_compose_msg(struct pci_dev *pdev, unsigned int irq,
>  		return -ENXIO;
>  
>  	cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
> -	err = assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus());
> +	if (count == 1)
> +		err = assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, apic->target_cpus());
> +	else
> +		err = assign_irq_vector_block(irq, count, apic->target_cpus());
> 
> WTF? We have already changed the function to take a count argument,
> why don't we propagate that all the way through instead of having 
> 
>     if (bla == 1)
>         assign_irq_vector();
>     else
> 	assign_irq_vector_block();
> 
> all over the place ?

assign_irq_vector() has a different allocation scheme from
assign_irq_vector_block().  Merging the two functions seems hard ... but
maybe we can have separate __assign_irq_block() and __assign_irq_vector()
and have assign_irq_vector() call the appropriate one?

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2011-06-17 17:12 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-02-13 20:25 [PATCH] Add support for multiple MSI on x86 Micha Nelissen
2011-02-14 12:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-14 19:47   ` Micha Nelissen
2011-02-15  2:38     ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-14 20:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-03-04 18:37   ` Jesse Barnes
2011-06-17 17:12   ` Matthew Wilcox
2011-03-04 18:36 ` Jesse Barnes
2011-03-04 19:53   ` Micha Nelissen
2011-03-08 21:05     ` Thomas Gleixner
     [not found]       ` <35bd5f56-658b-48e3-a376-b07350a29cf6@email.android.com>
2011-03-08 21:16         ` Thomas Gleixner
     [not found]           ` <71ed11a4-aff7-4eb6-b037-0e097bb96444@email.android.com>
2011-03-08 22:13             ` Thomas Gleixner
2011-03-10  2:05           ` Roland Dreier
2011-03-10 15:33             ` Clemens Ladisch

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).