> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hyong Youb Kim (hyonkim) <hyon...@cisco.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 11:28 AM
> To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; David Marchand
> <david.march...@redhat.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Alejandro
> Lucero <alejandro.luc...@netronome.com>; Anatoly Burakov
> <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; John Daley (johndale) <johnd...@cisco.com>; Shahed
> Shaikh <shsha...@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
> <ndabilpu...@marvell.com>
> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] vfio: avoid re-installing irq handler
>
> > > A rough patch for the approach mentioned earlier. It is only for
> discussion.
> > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-July/138113.html
> > >
> > > To try this out, first revert the following then apply.
> > > commit 89aac60e0be9 ("vfio: fix interrupts race condition")
> >
> > Yes. This patch has to be to reverted. It changes the existing
> > interrupt behavior and does not address the MSIX case as well.
> >
> > I think, The clean fix would be to introduce rte_intr_mask() and
> > rte_intr_unmask() by abstracting the INTX and MSIX differences And let
> > qede driver call it as needed.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Hi,
Hi Hyong,
>
> You are proposing these?
> - Add rte_intr_mask_intx, rte_intr_unmask_intx.
> No APIs for masking MSI/MSI-X as vfio-pci does not support that.
> - Modify PMD irq handlers to use rte_intr_unmask_intx as necessary.
No, introduce the rte_intr_mask() and rte_intr_unmask().
For MSIX + Linux VFIO, That API can return -ENOSUP as Linux VFIO+MSIX is not
supporting.
Another platform/eal may support it.
Mask and unmask is operation is known to all IRQ controllers.
So, IMO, As far as abstraction is concerned it will be good fit.
> That might be too intrusive. And too much work for the sake of INTx..
> Anyone really using/needing INTx these days? :-)
Yup. Mask needs to called only for only qede INTx. Looks like qede
Has MSIX and INTX separate handler. So this mask can go to qede INTx
>
> The following drivers call rte_intr_enable from their irq handlers. So with
> explicit rte_intr_unmask_intx, all these would need to do "if using intx,
> unmask"?
>
> atlantic, avp, axgbe, bnx2x, e1000, fm10k, ice, ixgbe, nfp, qede, sfc,
> vmxnet3
No change on these PMDs.
> And nfp seems to rely on rte_intr_enable to re-install irq handler to unmask
> a vector in MSI-X Table?
>
> if (hw->ctrl & NFP_NET_CFG_CTRL_MSIXAUTO) {
> /* If MSI-X auto-masking is used, clear the entry */
> rte_wmb();
> rte_intr_enable(&pci_dev->intr_handle);
>
> With David's patch and mine, this handler would have to first
> rte_intr_disable() and then enable, if such unmasking is really necessary..
>
> As for the semantics of rte_intr_enable/disable, I am ok as is.
> - "enable": put things in a state where NIC can send an interrupt, and
> PMD/app gets a callback.
> Whether this involves unmasking for INTx is hidden.
> - "disable": put things in a state where NIC cannot send an interrupt.
It looks OK to me. My only thought was, Since mask and unmask
is a common irq controller operation. We may not need to add
A lot of common code(Introducing a state) to hide unmask INTx.
More over as you said, There is may only handful of devices uses INTX.
IMO, mask and unmask API is good fit as eal abstraction.
But Using a separate API or hide inside eal to solve this problem is good
question.
May be more thoughts from another quys will be good.
We will try to send a version with mask/unmask API to see the changes required.
>
> Regardless of vfio changes, we should probably remove rte_intr_enable
> from qede_interrupt_handler (the MSI/MSI-X interrupt handler), to make
> usage/intention clear..
Yes. Anyway this change is required.
>
> Thanks.
> -Hyong
