> Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 10:36:22 -0500 > From: Scott Cheloha <scottchel...@gmail.com> > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 09:39:13AM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 01 2022, Scott Cheloha <scottchel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 07:15:33PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > >> On Sun, Jul 31 2022, Scott Cheloha <scottchel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > I am unsure how to properly mask RISC-V timer interrupts in hardware > > >> > at or above IPL_CLOCK. I think that would be cleaner than doing > > >> > another timer interrupt deferral thing. > > >> > > > >> > But, just to get the ball rolling, here a first attempt at the timer > > >> > interrupt deferral thing for riscv64. The motivation, as with every > > >> > other platform, is to eventually make it unnecessary for the machine > > >> > dependent code to know anything about the clock interrupt schedule. > > >> > > > >> > The thing I'm most unsure about is where to retrigger the timer in the > > >> > PLIC code. It seems right to do it from plic_setipl() because I want > > >> > to retrigger it before doing soft interrupt work, but I'm not sure. > > > > You're adding the timer reset to plic_setipl() but the latter is called > > after softintr processing in plic_splx(). > > > > /* Pending software intr is handled here */ > > if (ci->ci_ipending & riscv_smask[new]) > > riscv_do_pending_intr(new); > > > > plic_setipl(new); > > Yes, but plic_setipl() is also called from the softintr loop in > riscv_do_pending_intr() (riscv64/intr.c) right *before* we dispatch > any pending soft interrupts: > > 594 void > 595 riscv_do_pending_intr(int pcpl) > 596 { > 597 struct cpu_info *ci = curcpu(); > 598 u_long sie; > 599 > 600 sie = intr_disable(); > 601 > 602 #define DO_SOFTINT(si, ipl) \ > 603 if ((ci->ci_ipending & riscv_smask[pcpl]) & \ > 604 SI_TO_IRQBIT(si)) { \ > 605 ci->ci_ipending &= ~SI_TO_IRQBIT(si); \ > * 606 riscv_intr_func.setipl(ipl); \ > 607 intr_restore(sie); \ > 608 softintr_dispatch(si); \ > 609 sie = intr_disable(); \ > 610 } > 611 > 612 do { > 613 DO_SOFTINT(SIR_TTY, IPL_SOFTTTY); > 614 DO_SOFTINT(SIR_NET, IPL_SOFTNET); > 615 DO_SOFTINT(SIR_CLOCK, IPL_SOFTCLOCK); > 616 DO_SOFTINT(SIR_SOFT, IPL_SOFT); > 617 } while (ci->ci_ipending & riscv_smask[pcpl]); > > We might be fine doing it just once in plic_splx() before we do any > soft interrupt stuff. That's closer to what we're doing on other > platforms. > > I just figured it'd be safer to do it in plic_setipl() because we're > already disabling interrupts there. It seems I guessed correctly > because the patch didn't hang your machine. > > > >> > Unless I'm missing something, I don't think I need to do anything in > > >> > the default interrupt handler code, i.e. riscv64_dflt_setipl(), right? > > >> > > >> No idea about about the items above, but... > > >> > > >> > I have no riscv64 machine, so this is untested. Would appreciate > > >> > tests and feedback. > > >> > > >> There's an #include <machine/sbi.h> missing in plic.c, > > > > > > Whoops, corrected patch attached below. > > > > > >> with that added your diff builds and GENERIC.MP seems to behave > > >> (currently running make -j4 build), but I don't know exactly which > > >> problems I should look for. > > > > > > Thank you for trying it out. > > > > > > The patch changes how clock interrupt work is deferred on riscv64. > > > > > > If the code is wrong, the hardclock and statclock should eventually > > > die on every CPU. The death of the hardclock in particular would > > > manifest to the user as livelock. The scheduler would stop preempting > > > userspace and it would be impossible to use the machine interactively. > > > > > > There isn't really a direct way to exercise this code change. > > > > > > The best we can do is make the machine busy. If the machine is busy > > > we can expect more spl(9) calls and more deferred clock interrupt > > > work, which leaves more opportunities for the bug to surface. > > > > > > So, a parallel `make build` is fine. It's our gold standard for > > > making the machine really busy. > > > > The diff survived three make -j4 build/release in a row, the clock seems > > stable. > > Awesome! Thank you for hammering on it. > > kettenis, mlarkin, drahn: > > Is this code fine or do you want to go about this in a different way?
Ideally we'd handle the deferred timer in generic code, but that is a refactoring that can be done later when a SoC shows up that doesn't use plic(4). ok kettenis@ > Index: dev/plic.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/riscv64/dev/plic.c,v > retrieving revision 1.10 > diff -u -p -r1.10 plic.c > --- dev/plic.c 6 Apr 2022 18:59:27 -0000 1.10 > +++ dev/plic.c 4 Aug 2022 15:32:01 -0000 > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > #include <machine/bus.h> > #include <machine/fdt.h> > #include <machine/cpu.h> > +#include <machine/sbi.h> > #include "riscv64/dev/riscv_cpu_intc.h" > > #include <dev/ofw/openfirm.h> > @@ -556,6 +557,10 @@ plic_setipl(int new) > > /* higher values are higher priority */ > plic_set_threshold(ci->ci_cpuid, new); > + > + /* trigger deferred timer interrupt if cpl is now low enough */ > + if (ci->ci_timer_deferred && new < IPL_CLOCK) > + sbi_set_timer(0); > > intr_restore(sie); > } > Index: riscv64/clock.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/riscv64/riscv64/clock.c,v > retrieving revision 1.3 > diff -u -p -r1.3 clock.c > --- riscv64/clock.c 24 Jul 2021 22:41:09 -0000 1.3 > +++ riscv64/clock.c 4 Aug 2022 15:32:01 -0000 > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ > #include <sys/kernel.h> > #include <sys/systm.h> > #include <sys/evcount.h> > +#include <sys/stdint.h> > #include <sys/timetc.h> > > #include <machine/cpufunc.h> > @@ -106,6 +107,17 @@ clock_intr(void *frame) > int s; > > /* > + * If the clock interrupt is masked, defer all clock interrupt > + * work until the clock interrupt is unmasked from splx(9). > + */ > + if (ci->ci_cpl >= IPL_CLOCK) { > + ci->ci_timer_deferred = 1; > + sbi_set_timer(UINT64_MAX); > + return 0; > + } > + ci->ci_timer_deferred = 0; > + > + /* > * Based on the actual time delay since the last clock interrupt, > * we arrange for earlier interrupt next time. > */ > @@ -132,30 +144,23 @@ clock_intr(void *frame) > > sbi_set_timer(nextevent); > > - if (ci->ci_cpl >= IPL_CLOCK) { > - ci->ci_statspending += nstats; > - } else { > - nstats += ci->ci_statspending; > - ci->ci_statspending = 0; > - > - s = splclock(); > - intr_enable(); > - > - /* > - * Do standard timer interrupt stuff. > - */ > - while (ci->ci_lasttb < prevtb) { > - ci->ci_lasttb += tick_increment; > - clock_count.ec_count++; > - hardclock((struct clockframe *)frame); > - } > + s = splclock(); > + intr_enable(); > > - while (nstats-- > 0) > - statclock((struct clockframe *)frame); > - > - intr_disable(); > - splx(s); > + /* > + * Do standard timer interrupt stuff. > + */ > + while (ci->ci_lasttb < prevtb) { > + ci->ci_lasttb += tick_increment; > + clock_count.ec_count++; > + hardclock((struct clockframe *)frame); > } > + > + while (nstats-- > 0) > + statclock((struct clockframe *)frame); > + > + intr_disable(); > + splx(s); > > return 0; > } > Index: include/cpu.h > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/riscv64/include/cpu.h,v > retrieving revision 1.12 > diff -u -p -r1.12 cpu.h > --- include/cpu.h 10 Jun 2022 21:34:15 -0000 1.12 > +++ include/cpu.h 4 Aug 2022 15:32:01 -0000 > @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ struct cpu_info { > uint64_t ci_lasttb; > uint64_t ci_nexttimerevent; > uint64_t ci_nextstatevent; > - int ci_statspending; > + volatile int ci_timer_deferred; > > uint32_t ci_cpl; > uint32_t ci_ipending; >