> Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 10:36:22 -0500
> From: Scott Cheloha <[email protected]>
>
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 09:39:13AM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01 2022, Scott Cheloha <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 07:15:33PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Jul 31 2022, Scott Cheloha <[email protected]> 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;
>
