[RFC PATCH 2/2] irqchip: irq-ti-sci-inta: Introduce IRQ affinity support

[Marc Zyngier]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 08:16:07 +0000,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr at ti.com> wrote:
> 
> Add support for setting IRQ affinity for VINTs which have only one event
> mapped to them. This just involves changing the parent IRQs affinity
> (GIC/INTR). Flag VINTs which have affinity configured so as to not
> aggregate/map more events to such VINTs.



> 
> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr at ti.com>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-ti-sci-inta.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-ti-sci-inta.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-ti-sci-inta.c
> index f1419d24568e..237cb4707cb8 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-ti-sci-inta.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-ti-sci-inta.c
> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ struct ti_sci_inta_event_desc {
>   * @events:		Array of event descriptors assigned to this vint.
>   * @parent_virq:	Linux IRQ number that gets attached to parent
>   * @vint_id:		TISCI vint ID
> + * @affinity_managed	flag to indicate VINT affinity is managed
>   */
>  struct ti_sci_inta_vint_desc {
>  	struct irq_domain *domain;
> @@ -72,6 +73,7 @@ struct ti_sci_inta_vint_desc {
>  	struct ti_sci_inta_event_desc events[MAX_EVENTS_PER_VINT];
>  	unsigned int parent_virq;
>  	u16 vint_id;
> +	bool affinity_managed;
>  };
>  
>  /**
> @@ -334,6 +336,8 @@ static struct ti_sci_inta_event_desc *ti_sci_inta_alloc_irq(struct irq_domain *d
>  	vint_id = ti_sci_get_free_resource(inta->vint);
>  	if (vint_id == TI_SCI_RESOURCE_NULL) {
>  		list_for_each_entry(vint_desc, &inta->vint_list, list) {
> +			if (vint_desc->affinity_managed)
> +				continue;
>  			free_bit = find_first_zero_bit(vint_desc->event_map,
>  						       MAX_EVENTS_PER_VINT);
>  			if (free_bit != MAX_EVENTS_PER_VINT)
> @@ -434,6 +438,7 @@ static int ti_sci_inta_request_resources(struct irq_data *data)
>  		return PTR_ERR(event_desc);
>  
>  	data->chip_data = event_desc;
> +	irq_data_update_effective_affinity(data, cpu_online_mask);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -504,11 +509,45 @@ static void ti_sci_inta_ack_irq(struct irq_data *data)
>  		ti_sci_inta_manage_event(data, VINT_STATUS_OFFSET);
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +static int ti_sci_inta_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
> +				    const struct cpumask *mask_val, bool force)
> +{
> +	struct ti_sci_inta_event_desc *event_desc;
> +	struct ti_sci_inta_vint_desc *vint_desc;
> +	struct irq_data *parent_irq_data;
> +
> +	if (cpumask_equal(irq_data_get_effective_affinity_mask(d), mask_val))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	event_desc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> +	if (event_desc) {
> +		vint_desc = to_vint_desc(event_desc, event_desc->vint_bit);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Cannot set affinity if there is more than one event
> +		 * mapped to same VINT
> +		 */
> +		if (bitmap_weight(vint_desc->event_map, MAX_EVENTS_PER_VINT) > 1)
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +
> +		vint_desc->affinity_managed = true;
> +
> +		irq_data_update_effective_affinity(d, mask_val);
> +		parent_irq_data = irq_get_irq_data(vint_desc->parent_virq);
> +		if (parent_irq_data->chip->irq_set_affinity)
> +			return parent_irq_data->chip->irq_set_affinity(parent_irq_data, mask_val, force);

This looks completely wrong.

You still have a chained irqchip on all paths, and have to do some
horrible probing to work out:

- which parent interrupt this is

- how many interrupts are connected to it

And then the fun begins:

- You have one interrupt that is standalone, so its affinity can be
  moved

- An unrelated driver gets probed, and one of its interrupts gets
  lumped together with the one above

- Now it cannot be moved anymore, and userspace complains

The rule is very simple: chained irqchip, no affinity management.
Either you reserve a poll of direct interrupts that have affinity
management and no muxing, or you keep the current approach.

But I'm strongly opposed to this sort of approach.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.