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
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
