Re: [PATCH] irq: fasteoi handler re-runs on concurrent invoke

[Yipeng Zou]

在 2023/3/17 17:53, James Gowans 写道:
> Update the generic handle_fasteoi_irq to cater for the case when the
> next interrupt comes in while the previous handler is still running.
> Currently when that happens the irq_may_run() early out causes the next
> IRQ to be lost. Change the behaviour to mark the interrupt as pending
> and re-run the handler when handle_fasteoi_irq sees that the pending
> flag has been set again. This is largely inspired by handle_edge_irq.
>
> Generally it should not be possible for the next interrupt to arrive
> while the previous handler is still running: the next interrupt should
> only arrive after the EOI message has been sent and the previous handler
> has returned. However, there is a race where if the interrupt affinity
> is changed while the previous handler is running, then the next
> interrupt can arrive at a different CPU while the previous handler is
> still running. In that case there will be a concurrent invoke and the
> early out will be taken.
>
> For example:
>
>             CPU 0             |          CPU 1
> -----------------------------|-----------------------------
> interrupt start              |
>    handle_fasteoi_irq         | set_affinity(CPU 1)
>      handler                  |
>      ...                      | interrupt start
>      ...                      |   handle_fasteoi_irq -> early out
>    handle_fasteoi_irq return  | interrupt end
> interrupt end                |
>
> This issue was observed specifically on an arm64 system with a GIC-v3
> handling MSIs; GIC-v3 uses the handle_fasteoi_irq handler. The issue is
> that the global ITS is responsible for affinity but does not know
> whether interrupts are pending/running, only the CPU-local redistributor
> handles the EOI. Hence when the affinity is changed in the ITS, the new
> CPU's redistributor does not know that the original CPU is still running
> the handler.
>
> There are a few uncertainties about this implementation compared to the
> prior art in handle_edge_irq:
>
> 1. Do we need to mask the IRQ and then unmask it later? I don't think so
> but it's not entirely clear why handle_edge_irq does this anyway; it's
> an edge IRQ so not sure why it needs to be masked.
>
> 2. Should the EOI delivery be inside the do loop after every handler
> run? I think outside the loops is best; only inform the chip to deliver
> more IRQs once all pending runs have been finished.
>
> 3. Do we need to check that desc->action is still set? I don't know if
> it can be un-set while the IRQ is still enabled.
>
> 4. There is now more overlap with the handle_edge_eoi_irq handler;
> should we try to unify these?
>
> Signed-off-by: James Gowans <jgowans@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: KarimAllah Raslan <karahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   Documentation/core-api/genericirq.rst | 9 ++++++++-
>   kernel/irq/chip.c                     | 9 +++++++--
>   2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/genericirq.rst b/Documentation/core-api/genericirq.rst
> index f959c9b53f61..b54485eca8b5 100644
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/genericirq.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/genericirq.rst
> @@ -240,7 +240,14 @@ which only need an EOI at the end of the handler.
>   
>   The following control flow is implemented (simplified excerpt)::
>   
> -    handle_irq_event(desc->action);
> +    if (desc->status & running) {
> +        desc->status |= pending;
> +        return;
> +    }
> +    do {
> +        desc->status &= ~pending;
> +        handle_irq_event(desc->action);
> +    } while (status & pending);
>       desc->irq_data.chip->irq_eoi();
>   
>   
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/chip.c b/kernel/irq/chip.c
> index 49e7bc871fec..4e5fc2b7e8a9 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/chip.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/chip.c
> @@ -692,8 +692,10 @@ void handle_fasteoi_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
>   
>   	raw_spin_lock(&desc->lock);
>   
> -	if (!irq_may_run(desc))
> +	if (!irq_may_run(desc)) {
> +		desc->istate |= IRQS_PENDING;
>   		goto out;
> +	}
>   
>   	desc->istate &= ~(IRQS_REPLAY | IRQS_WAITING);
>   
> @@ -711,7 +713,10 @@ void handle_fasteoi_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
>   	if (desc->istate & IRQS_ONESHOT)
>   		mask_irq(desc);
>   
> -	handle_irq_event(desc);
> +	do {
> +		handle_irq_event(desc);
> +	} while (unlikely((desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING) &&
> +			!irqd_irq_disabled(&desc->irq_data)));
>   
>   	cond_unmask_eoi_irq(desc, chip);
>   

Hi:

Finally, someone also hit this problem.

I just send patch a  few weeks ago.

It seems that we have the same solution.(I introduced a new flow handler).

Hopefully this issue will be fixed as soon as possible.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230310101417.1081434-1-zouyipeng@xxxxxxxxxx/

--
Regards,
Yipeng Zou