Re: [PATCH v10 00/15] Linux RISC-V AIA Support

[Anup Patel]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 9:15 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 7:37 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 12:32 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:07 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:10 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 2:17 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks for the quick reply!
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 7:13 PM Björn Töpel <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Hi Anup,
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Anup Patel <apatel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > The RISC-V AIA specification is ratified as-per the RISC-V international
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > process. The latest ratified AIA specifcation can be found at:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aia/releases/download/1.0/riscv-interrupts-1.0.pdf
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > At a high-level, the AIA specification adds three things:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > 1) AIA CSRs
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >    - Improved local interrupt support
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > 2) Incoming Message Signaled Interrupt Controller (IMSIC)
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >    - Per-HART MSI controller
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >    - Support MSI virtualization
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >    - Support IPI along with virtualization
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> > 3) Advanced Platform-Level Interrupt Controller (APLIC)
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >    - Wired interrupt controller
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >    - In MSI-mode, converts wired interrupt into MSIs (i.e. MSI generator)
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >    - In Direct-mode, injects external interrupts directly into HARTs
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Thanks for working on the AIA support! I had a look at the series, and
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> have some concerns about interrupt ID abstraction.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> A bit of background, for readers not familiar with the AIA details.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> IMSIC allows for 2047 unique MSI ("msi-irq") sources per hart, and
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> each MSI is dedicated to a certain hart. The series takes the approach
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> to say that there are, e.g., 2047 interrupts ("lnx-irq") globally.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Each lnx-irq consists of #harts * msi-irq -- a slice -- and in the
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> slice only *one* msi-irq is acutally used.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> This scheme makes affinity changes more robust, because the interrupt
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> sources on "other" harts are pre-allocated. On the other hand it
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> requires to propagate irq masking to other harts via IPIs (this is
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> mostly done up setup/tear down). It's also wasteful, because msi-irqs
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> are hogged, and cannot be used.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Contemporary storage/networking drivers usually uses queues per core
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> (or a sub-set of cores). The current scheme wastes a lot of msi-irqs.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> If we instead used a scheme where "msi-irq == lnx-irq", instead of
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> "lnq-irq = {hart 0;msi-irq x , ... hart N;msi-irq x}", there would be
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> a lot MSIs for other users. 1-1 vs 1-N. E.g., if a storage device
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> would like to use 5 queues (5 cores) on a 128 core system, the current
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> scheme would consume 5 * 128 MSIs, instead of just 5.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On the plus side:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> * Changing interrupts affinity will never fail, because the interrupts
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>   on each hart is pre-allocated.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On the negative side:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> * Wasteful interrupt usage, and a system can potientially "run out" of
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>   interrupts. Especially for many core systems.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> * Interrupt masking need to proagate to harts via IPIs (there's no
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>   broadcast csr in IMSIC), and a more complex locking scheme IMSIC
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Summary:
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> The current series caps the number of global interrupts to maximum
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> 2047 MSIs for all cores (whole system). A better scheme, IMO, would be
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> to expose 2047 * #harts unique MSIs.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> >> I think this could simplify/remove(?) the locking as well.
> >> >> >>> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> > Exposing 2047 * #harts unique MSIs has multiple issues:
> >> >> >>> >> >> > 1) The irq_set_affinity() does not work for MSIs because each
> >> >> >>> >> >> >      IRQ is not tied to a particular HART. This means we can't
> >> >> >>> >> >> >      balance the IRQ processing load among HARTs.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> Yes, you can balance. In your code, each *active* MSI is still
> >> >> >>> >> >> bound/active to a specific hard together with the affinity mask. In an
> >> >> >>> >> >> 1-1 model you would still need to track the affinity mask, but the
> >> >> >>> >> >> irq_set_affinity() would be different. It would try to allocate a new
> >> >> >>> >> >> MSI from the target CPU, and then switch to having that MSI active.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> That's what x86 does AFAIU, which is also constrained by the # of
> >> >> >>> >> >> available MSIs.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> The downside, as I pointed out, is that the set affinity action can
> >> >> >>> >> >> fail for a certain target CPU.
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > Yes, irq_set_affinity() can fail for the suggested approach plus for
> >> >> >>> >> > RISC-V AIA, one HART does not have access to other HARTs
> >> >> >>> >> > MSI enable/disable bits so the approach will also involve IPI.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Correct, but the current series does a broadcast to all cores, where the
> >> >> >>> >> 1-1 approach is at most an IPI to a single core.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> 128+c machines are getting more common, and you have devices that you
> >> >> >>> >> bring up/down on a per-core basis. Broadcasting IPIs to all cores, when
> >> >> >>> >> dealing with a per-core activity is a pretty noisy neighbor.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Broadcast IPI in the current approach is only done upon MSI mask/unmask
> >> >> >>> > operation. It is not done upon set_affinity() of interrupt handling.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I'm aware. We're on the same page here.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> This could be fixed in the existing 1-n approach, by not require to sync
> >> >> >>> >> the cores that are not handling the MSI in question. "Lazy disable"
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Incorrect. The approach you are suggesting involves an IPI upon every
> >> >> >>> > irq_set_affinity(). This is because a HART can only enable it's own
> >> >> >>> > MSI ID so when an IRQ is moved to from HART A to HART B with
> >> >> >>> > a different ID X on HART B then we will need an IPI in irq_set_affinit()
> >> >> >>> > to enable ID X on HART B.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Yes, the 1-1 approach will require an IPI to one target cpu on affinity
> >> >> >>> changes, and similar on mask/unmask.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The 1-n approach, require no-IPI on affinity changes (nice!), but IPI
> >> >> >>> broadcast to all cores on mask/unmask (not so nice).
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> >> My concern is interrupts become a scarce resource with this
> >> >> >>> >> >> implementation, but maybe my view is incorrect. I've seen bare-metal
> >> >> >>> >> >> x86 systems (no VMs) with ~200 cores, and ~2000 interrupts, but maybe
> >> >> >>> >> >> that is considered "a lot of interrupts".
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >> As long as we don't get into scenarios where we're running out of
> >> >> >>> >> >> interrupts, due to the software design.
> >> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > The current approach is simpler and ensures irq_set_affinity
> >> >> >>> >> > always works. The limit of max 2047 IDs is sufficient for many
> >> >> >>> >> > systems (if not all).
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Let me give you another view. On a 128c system each core has ~16 unique
> >> >> >>> >> interrupts for disposal. E.g. the Intel E800 NIC has more than 2048
> >> >> >>> >> network queue pairs for each PF.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Clearly, this example is a hypothetical and represents a poorly
> >> >> >>> > designed platform.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Having just 16 IDs per-Core is a very poor design choice. In fact, the
> >> >> >>> > Server SoC spec mandates a minimum 255 IDs.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> You are misreading. A 128c system with 2047 MSIs per-core, will only
> >> >> >>> have 16 *per-core unique* (2047/128) interrupts with the current series.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I'm not saying that each IMSIC has 16 IDs, I'm saying that in a 128c
> >> >> >>> system with the maximum amount of MSIs possible in the spec, you'll end
> >> >> >>> up with 16 *unique* interrupts per core.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -ENOPARSE
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't see how this applies to the current approach because we treat
> >> >> >> MSI ID space as global across cores so if a system has 2047 MSIs
> >> >> >> per-core then we have 2047 MSIs across all cores.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ok, I'll try again! :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Let's assume that each core in the 128c system has some per-core
> >> >> > resources, say a two NIC queue pairs, and a storage queue pair. This
> >> >> > will consume, e.g., 2*2 + 2 (6) MSI sources from the global namespace.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If each core does this it'll be 6*128 MSI sources of the global
> >> >> > namespace.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The maximum number of "privates" MSI sources a core can utilize is 16.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm trying (it's does seem to go that well ;-)) to point out that it's
> >> >> > only 16 unique sources per core. For, say, a 256 core system it would be
> >> >> > 8. 2047 MSI sources in a system is not much.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Say that I want to spin up 24 NIC queues with one MSI each on each core
> >> >> > on my 128c system. That's not possible with this series, while with an
> >> >> > 1-1 system it wouldn't be an issue.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Clearer, or still weird?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > Regarding NICs which support a large number of queues, the driver
> >> >> >>> > will typically enable only one queue per-core and set the affinity to
> >> >> >>> > separate cores. We have user-space data plane applications based
> >> >> >>> > on DPDK which are capable of using a large number of NIC queues
> >> >> >>> > but these applications are polling based and don't use MSIs.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> That's one sample point, and clearly not the only one. There are *many*
> >> >> >>> different usage models. Just because you *assign* MSI, doesn't mean they
> >> >> >>> are firing all the time.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I can show you a couple of networking setups where this is clearly not
> >> >> >>> enough. Each core has a large number of QoS queues, and each queue would
> >> >> >>> very much like to have a dedicated MSI.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >> > When we encounter a system requiring a large number of MSIs,
> >> >> >>> >> > we can either:
> >> >> >>> >> > 1) Extend the AIA spec to support greater than 2047 IDs
> >> >> >>> >> > 2) Re-think the approach in the IMSIC driver
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> > The choice between #1 and #2 above depends on the
> >> >> >>> >> > guarantees we want for irq_set_affinity().
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> The irq_set_affinity() behavior is better with this series, but I think
> >> >> >>> >> the other downsides: number of available interrupt sources, and IPI
> >> >> >>> >> broadcast are worse.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > The IPI overhead in the approach you are suggesting will be
> >> >> >>> > even bad compared to the IPI overhead of the current approach
> >> >> >>> > because we will end-up doing IPI upon every irq_set_affinity()
> >> >> >>> > in the suggested approach compared to doing IPI upon every
> >> >> >>> > mask/unmask in the current approach.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Again, very workload dependent.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> This series does IPI broadcast on masking/unmasking, which means that
> >> >> >>> cores that don't care get interrupted because, say, a network queue-pair
> >> >> >>> is setup on another core.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Some workloads never change the irq affinity.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There are various events which irq affinity such as irq balance,
> >> >> >> CPU hotplug, system suspend, etc.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Also, the 1-1 approach does IPI upon set_affinity, mask and
> >> >> >> unmask whereas the 1-n approach does IPI only upon mask
> >> >> >> and unmask.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > An important distinction; When you say IPI on mask/unmask it is a
> >> >> > broadcast IPI to *all* cores, which is pretty instrusive.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The 1-1 variant does an IPI to a *one* target core.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> I'm just pointing out that there are pro/cons with both variants.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > The biggest advantage of the current approach is a reliable
> >> >> >>> > irq_set_affinity() which is a very valuable thing to have.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ...and I'm arguing that we're paying a big price for that.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > ARM systems easily support a large number of LPIs per-core.
> >> >> >>> > For example, GIC-700 supports 56000 LPIs per-core.
> >> >> >>> > (Refer, https://developer.arm.com/documentation/101516/0300/About-the-GIC-700/Features)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Yeah, but this is not the GIC. This is something that looks more like
> >> >> >>> the x86 world. We'll be stuck with a lot of implementations with AIA 1.0
> >> >> >>> spec, and many cores.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Well, RISC-V AIA is neigher ARM GIG not x86 APIC. All I am saying
> >> >> >> is that there are systems with large number per-core interrupt IDs
> >> >> >> for handling MSIs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, and while that is nice, it's not what IMSIC is.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some follow-ups, after thinking more about it more over the weekend.
> >> >>
> >> >> * Do one really need an IPI for irq_set_affinity() for the 1-1 model?
> >> >>   Why touch the enable/disable bits when moving interrupts?
> >> >
> >> > In the 1-1 model, the ID on the current HART and target HART upon
> >> > irq_set_affinity will be different so we can't leave the unused ID on
> >> > current HART enabled because it can lead to spurious interrupts
> >> > when the ID on current HART is re-used for some other device.
> >>
> >> Hmm, is this really an actual problem, or a theoretical one? The
> >> implementation need to track what's in-use, so can we ever get into this
> >> situation?
> >
> > As of now, it is theoretical but it is certainly possible to hit this issue.
>
> Sorry for being slow here, Anup, but could you give an example how this
> could happen? For me it sounds like this could only be caused by a
> broken (buggy) implementation?

Let me re-state the problem: When ID X on HART A is moved to ID Y
on HART B. Now the movement might have be initiated by some
some HART C doing irq_set_affinity(). Once the movement is done
the ID X on HART A should be disabled because if not disabled then
some device (possibly buggy) can have HART A to take MSI with
ID X but this MSI won't map to any Linux IRQ since the it is already
moved to ID Y on HART B.

>
> >> Somewhat related; I had a similar question for imsic_pci_{un,}mask_irq()
> >> -- why not only do the the default mask operation (only
> >> pci_msi_{un,}mask_irq()), but instead propagate to the IMSIC
> >> mask/unmask?
> >
> > We have hierarchical IMSIC PCI irq domain whoes parent irq domain
> > is IMSIC base domain. Unfortunately pci_msi_[un]mask_irq() don't
> > work for hierarchical irq domain.
>
> Ok! Thanks for the explanation!
>
> >> > There is also a possibility of receiving an interrupt while the ID was
> >> > moved to a new target HART in-which case we have to detect and
> >> > re-trigger interrupt on the new target HART. In fact, x86 APLIC does
> >> > an IPI to take care of this case.
> >>
> >> This case I get, and the implementation can track that both are in use.
> >> It's the spurious one that I'm dubious of (don't get).
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> * In my book the IMSIC looks very much like the x86 LAPIC, which also
> >> >>   has few interrupts (IMSIC <2048, LAPIC 256). The IRQ matrix allocator
> >> >>   [1], and a scheme similar to LAPIC [2] would be a good fit. This is
> >> >>   the 1-1 model, but more sophisticated than what I've been describing
> >> >>   (e.g. properly handling mangaged/regular irqs). As a bonus we would
> >> >>   get the IRQ matrix debugfs/tracepoint support.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I have been evaluating the 1-1 model for the past few days. I also
> >> > have a working implementation with a simple per-CPU bitmap based
> >> > allocator which handles both legacy MSI (block of 1,2,4,8,16, or 32 IDs)
> >> > and MSI-X.
> >> >
> >> > The irq matrix allocator needs to be improved for handling legacy MSI
> >> > so initially I will post a v11 series which works for me and converging
> >> > with irq matrix allocator can be future work.
> >>
> >> What's missing/needs to be improved for legacy MSI (legacy MSI ==
> >> !MSI-X, right?) in the matrix allocator?
> >
> > For legacy MSI, a block IDs needs to be contiguous and the number
> > of IDs can be a power of 2.
>
> Oh, so this is not supported by the matrix allocator?

Yes, that's correct. IRQ matrix allocator only supports allocating
IDs suitable for MSI-X. Improving IRQ matrix allocator is a
separate effort in my opinion.

The ARM GICv3/v4 driver supports both MSI and MSI-X.

Regards,
Anup