[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 09/10] irqchip: ti-sci-inta: Add support for Interrupt Aggregator driver
Hi Grygorii,

On 31/10/18 16:39, Grygorii Strashko wrote:


> I'd try to provide some additional information here.
> (Sry, I'll still use term "events")
> As Lokesh explained in other mail on K3 SoC everything is generic and most
> of resources allocated dynamicaly:
> - generic DMA channels
> - generic HW rings (used by DMA channel)
> - generic events (assigned to the rings) and muxed to different cores/hosts
> So, when some driver would like to perform DMA transaction It's
> required to build (configure) DMA channel by allocating different type of
> resources and link them together to get finally working Data Movement path
> (situation complicated by ti-sci firmware which policies resources between cores/hosts):
> - get UDMA channel from available range
> - get HW rings and attach them to the UDMA channel
> - get event, assign it to the ring and mux it to the core/host through IA->IR-> chain
> (and this step is done by ti_sci_inta_register_event() - no DT as everything is dynamic).
> Next, how this is working now - ti_sci_inta_register_event():
> - first call does similar things as regular DT irq mapping (end up calling irq_create_fwspec_mapping()
> and builds IRQ chain as below:
> linux_virq = ti_sci_inta_register_event(dev, <ringacc tisci_dev_id>,
> <ringacc id>, 0, IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH, false);
> +---------------------+
> | IA |
> +--------+ | +------+ | +--------+ +------+
> | ring 1 +----->evtA+----->VintX +----------> IR +---------> GIC +-->
> +--------+ | +------+ | +--------+ +------+ Linux IRQ Y
> evtA | |
> | |
> +---------------------+
> - second call updates only IA input part while keeping other parts of IRQ chain the same
> if valid <linux_virq> passed as input parameter:
> linux_virq = ti_sci_inta_register_event(dev, <ringacc tisci_dev_id>,
> <ringacc id>, linux_virq, IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH, false);
> +---------------------+
> | IA |
> +--------+ | +------+ | +--------+ +------+
> | ring 1 +----->evtA+--^-->VintX +----------> IR +---------> GIC +-->
> +--------+ | | +------+ | +--------+ +------+ Linux IRQ Y
> | | |
> +--------+ | | |
> | ring 2 +----->evtB+--+ |
> +--------+ | |
> +---------------------+

This is basically equivalent requesting a bunch of MSIs for a single
device, and obtaining a set of corresponding interrupts. The fact that
you end-up muxing them in the IA block is an implementation detail.

> As per above, irq-ti-sci-inta and tisci fw creates shared IRQ on HW layer by attaching
> events to already established IA->IR->GIC IRQ chain. Any Rings events will trigger
> Linux IRQ Y line and keep it active until Rings are not empty.
> Now why this was done this way?
> Note. I'm not saying this is right, but it is the way we've done it as of now. And I hope MSI
> will help to move forward, but I'm not very familiar with it.
> The consumer of this approach is K3 Networking driver, first of all, and
> this approach allows to eliminate runtime overhead in Networking hot path and
> provides possibility to implement driver's specific queues/rings handling policies
> - like round-robin vs priority.
> CPSW networking driver doesn't need to know exact ring generated IRQ - it

Well, to fit the Linux model, you'll have to know. Events needs to be
signalled as individual IRQs.

> need to know if there is packet for processing, so current IRQ handling sequence we have (simplified):
> - any ring evt -> IA -> IR -> GIC -> Linux IRQ Y
> handle_fasteoi_irq() -> cpsw_irq_handler -> disable_irq() -> napi_schedule()

Here, disable_irq() will only affect a single "event".

> ...
> soft_irq() -> cpsw_poll():
> - [1] for each ring from Hi prio to Low prio
> [2] get packet
> [3] if (packet) process packet & goto [2]
> else goto [1]
> if (no more packets) goto [4]
> [4] enable_irq()
> As can be seen there is no intermediate IRQ dispatchers on IA/IR levels and no IRQs-per-rings,
> and NAPI poll cycle allows to implement driver's specific rings handling policy.
> Next: depending on the use case following optimizations are possible:
> 1) throughput: split all TX (or RX) rings on X groups, where X = num_cpus
> and allocate assign IRQ to each group for Networking XPS/RPS/RSS.
> For example, CPSW2G has 8 TX channels and so 8 completion rings, 4 CPUs:
> rings[0,1] -(IA/IR) - Linux IRQ 1
> rings[2,3] -(IA/IR) - Linux IRQ 2
> rings[4,5] -(IA/IR) - Linux IRQ 3
> rings[6,7] -(IA/IR) - Linux IRQ 4
> each Linux IRQ assigned to separate CPU.

What you call "Linux IRQ" is what ends up being generated at the GIC
level, and isn't the interrupt the driver will get. It will get an
interrupt number which represent a single event. We absolutely need to
maintain this 1:1 mapping between event and driver-visible interrupts.
Whatever happens between the scenes is none of the driver problem.

In your "one interrupt, multiple events" paradigm, the whole IA thing
would be conceptually part of your networking IP. I don't believe this
is the case, and trawling the documentation seems to confirm this view.

> 2) min latency:
> Ring X is used by RT application for TX/RX some traffic (using AF_XDP sockets for example)
> Ring X can be assigned with separate IRQ while other rings still grouped to
> produce 1 IRQ
> rings[0,6] - (IA/IR) - Linux IRQ 1
> rings[7] - (IA/IR) - Linux IRQ 2
> Linux IRQ 2 assigned to separate CPU where RT application is running.
> Hope above will help to clarify some K3 AM6 IRQ generation questions and
> find the way to move forward.

Well, I'm convinced that we do not want a networking driver to be tied
to an interrupt architecture, and that the two should be completely
independent. But that's my own opinion. I can only see two solutions
moving forward:

1) You make the IA a real interrupt controller that exposes real
interrupts (one per event), and write your networking driver
independently of the underlying interrupt architecture.

2) you make the IA an integral part of your network driver, not exposing
anything outside of it, and limiting the interactions with the IR
*through the standard IRQ API*. You duplicate this knowledge throughout
the other client drivers.

I believe that (2) would be a massive design mistake as it locks the
driver to a single of the HW (and potentially a single revision of the
firmware) while (1) gives you the required level of flexibility by
hiding the whole event "concept" at a single location.

Yes, (1) makes you rewrite your existing, out of tree drivers. Oh well...


Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-31 19:22    [W:0.232 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site