> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim) <hyon...@cisco.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 4:36 PM
> To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar
> Dabilpuram <ndabilpu...@marvell.com>; David Marchand
> <david.march...@redhat.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Bruce
> Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> Cc: John Daley (johndale) <johnd...@cisco.com>; Shahed Shaikh
> <shsha...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add mask and unmask interrupt APIs
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 7:44 PM
> > To: Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim) <hyon...@cisco.com>; Nithin Kumar
> > Dabilpuram <ndabilpu...@marvell.com>; David Marchand
> > <david.march...@redhat.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>;
> > Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Bruce Richardson
> > <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
> > Cc: John Daley (johndale) <johnd...@cisco.com>; Shahed Shaikh
> > <shsha...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] eal: add mask and unmask interrupt
> > APIs
> >
> > > > I think, it vary from the perspective of IRQ Chip(or controller)
> > > > vs NIC
> > > > register(Source) PoV.
> > > > Since the API starts from rte_intr_* it is more of controller so
> > > > _ack_ make sense Other reason for ack:
> > > > 1) It will enforce that it needs to be called form ISR
> > > > 2) It would be have been really correct to unmask if
> > > > VFIO+MSIx+Linux supports it
> > > > 3) if it is ack, no need to add unmask counterpart, the _mask_ API
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just curious, what you mean by irq controller? Ack/mask/unmask PIOs
> > > all
> > go
> >
> > Programmable Interrupt Controller. Like Intel 8259A, GIC from ARM etc
> > The drivers in linux/drivers/irqchip/
> >
> > > to the NIC. It is the NIC that asserts/de-asserts irq..
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Besides the name, are we agreeing that we want these?
> > > > > - Unmask if INTx
> > > >
> > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > > - Nothing if MSI/MSI-X
> > > > Yes for MSI over VFIO
> > > > No for MSI over UIO/igb_uio
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess I was not clear. For MSI/MSI-X, we do not want to do
> > > mask/unmask regardless of vfio-pci/igb_uio. Below is my comment
> > > about linux/windows/freebsd from an earlier email. Do you disagree?
> > > I am sure there are plenty of kernel NIC driver guys here. Please
> > > correct me if I am mistaken...
> >
> >
> > For some reason, igb_uio kernel driver mask the interrupt for MSIx.
> > We need to ack or unmask if needs to work with MSIX + IGB_UIO.
> >
> > See
> > pci_uio_alloc_resource()
> > if (dev->kdrv == RTE_KDRV_IGB_UIO)
> > dev->intr_handle.type = RTE_INTR_HANDLE_UIO;
> > else {
> > dev->intr_handle.type = RTE_INTR_HANDLE_UIO_INTX;
> >
> > igbuio_pci_irqcontrol() for masking in kernel.
> >
>
> igb_uio does not auto-mask MSI/MSI-X.
I have not tested igbuio as we don't specific NIC + IGB_UIO platform.
The observation based on following code. see code under HAVE_PCI_MSI_MASK_IRQ
static int
igbuio_pci_irqcontrol(struct uio_info *info, s32 irq_state)
{
struct rte_uio_pci_dev *udev = info->priv;
struct pci_dev *pdev = udev->pdev;
#ifdef HAVE_PCI_MSI_MASK_IRQ
struct irq_data *irq = irq_get_irq_data(udev->info.irq);
#endif
pci_cfg_access_lock(pdev);
if (udev->mode == RTE_INTR_MODE_MSIX || udev->mode ==
RTE_INTR_MODE_MSI) {
#ifdef HAVE_PCI_MSI_MASK_IRQ
if (irq_state == 1)
pci_msi_unmask_irq(irq);
else
pci_msi_mask_irq(irq);
#else
igbuio_mask_irq(pdev, udev->mode, irq_state);
#endif
}
if (udev->mode == RTE_INTR_MODE_LEGACY)
pci_intx(pdev, !!irq_state);
pci_cfg_access_unlock(pdev);
return 0;
}
>
> static irqreturn_t
> igbuio_pci_irqhandler(int irq, void *dev_id) {
> struct rte_uio_pci_dev *udev = (struct rte_uio_pci_dev *)dev_id;
> struct uio_info *info = &udev->info;
>
> /* Legacy mode need to mask in hardware */
> if (udev->mode == RTE_INTR_MODE_LEGACY &&
> !pci_check_and_mask_intx(udev->pdev))
> return IRQ_NONE;
>
> uio_event_notify(info);
>
> /* Message signal mode, no share IRQ and automasked */
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
>
> Also tested just now with igb_uio. The driver does not need to call
> rte_intr_enable(), and it keeps getting interrupts without any issues.
If you are sure, we can make MSIX+IGB_UIO as NOP in rte_intr_ack()
> Am I missing something?
>
> -Hyong
>
> > So it is more of making inline with igb_uio kernel driver AND not
> > break The existing drivers which was using rte_intr_enable in ISR with
> > MSIX+IGB_UIO
> >
> > I do agree with that for edge trigged interrupt mask may not require
> > from kernel.
> > But I am not sure why it is added in igb_uio kernel driver. May be it
> > is just legacy.
> > Anyway this wont change schematics, when igb_uio kenrel fixed then the
> > counter Part can be changed in rte_intr_ack(). Ie. it is transparent
> > to drivers.
> >
> > >
> > > > I don't have very strong opinion unmask vs ack. I prefer to have
> > > > ack due the reasons stated above.
> > > > If you really have strong opinion on using unmask, we will stick
> > > > with that to make forward progress.
> > > > Let us know.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have no strong opinion either.
> >
> > OK. Lets stick with rte_intr_ack().
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks..
> > > -Hyong
