Re: [RFC] killing the NR_IRQS arrays.

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> writes:

> On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 05:10 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> Getting the drivers changed actually looks to be pretty straight
>> forward it will just be a very large mechanical change.  We change the
>> type where of variables where appropriate and every once in a while
>> introduce an irq_nr(irq) to get the actual irq number for the places
>> that care (ISA or print statements).
>
> Dunno about that irq_nr thingy. If we go that way, I'd be tempted to
> remove the number completely from the "public" side of irq_desc... or
> not.

When dealing with users and userspace for /proc/interrupts /proc/irq
and the like we need a way to talk about irqs.  Currently we use the
interrupt number for that and we are likely to break the user/kernel
interface if we don't preserve that.  Debugging would tend to suck
if we couldn't print out the irq number of the irq a driver has
been assigned and trace it through various data structures.

For hardware that is not hotplug or auto discoverable I think we will
need the irq number to talk about the ISA number as well.

So I don't see a way that we can get rid of a number completely but
it should be of much less significance.

> On powerpc, we have this remapped thingy because we completely separate
> the linux "virtual" interrupt domain from the physical numbering domains
> of each PIC. Your change would turn the linux virtual domain into
> pointers, removing the need for an array and associated limitations,
> which is nice.
>
> So to a given irq_desc / irq "virtual" number today, I match a pair HW
> number (which is a special typedef which is currently defined as an
> unsigned long) and a pointer to the irq "host" (which is the entity that
> define a HW number domain).
>
> That means that you can have multiple hosts and a given HW number can
> exist multiple times, once per host.
>
> Do you think the irq_hwnumber_t thingy I have should then be generalized
> and put into the irq_desc ? I would need an additional void * pointer to
> the irq host as well (it's not a 1:1 relationship to an irq chip and
> need to be accessed by generic code).

Having taken a little bit of time to digest roughly what the concept
is I think I can finally answer this one.  

No.  I don't think we should make your irq_hwnumber_t thingy general
because it is not general.  I don't understand why you need it to be
an unsigned long, that still puzzles me.  But for the rest it actually
appears that ppc has a simpler model to deal with.

I don't think I actually can describe x86 hardware in you hwnumber_t
world.  Although I can approximate.

In non-legacy mode at the top of the tree I have a network cooperating
irq controllers.  For each cpu there is an lapic next to each cpu that
catches interrupt packets and below that I have interrupt controllers
that throw interrupt packets.  In the network of cooperating interrupt
controllers a interrupt packet has a destination address that looks
like (cpu#, vector#) where cpu# is currently at 8 bits and slowly
growing and the vector# is a fixed 8 bits.

The interrupt controllers that throw those packets have a fixed
number of irq slots usually 24 or so.  Each slot (referred to in the
code as a pin) can be programmed which (cpu#, vector#) packet it
throws when an interrupt occurs. Including an option to vary the cpu#
between a set of cpus.

So to be frank to handle this model properly I need to deal with
this properly I need.
#define NR_IRQS (NR_CPUS*256)

There is enough flexibility in this model that hardware vectors
have not found a need to cascade interrupt controllers.


> Having the HW number be clearly specific to a "domain controller" makes
> also a lot of sense in the embedded field with lots of cascaded
> interrupt controllers. It avoids having to play all sorts of tricks to
> assign ranges of numbers to various controllers in the system. Only the
> local number on a given controller matters, the rest is dynamically
> assigned.

Ben I have no problem with a number that is specific to an irq
controller for dealing with the internal irq controller
implementations, heck I think everyone has that to some degree

The linux irq number will remain an arbitrary software number for
use by the linux system for talking about the source of the
interrupt.

Why in a sparse address space you would find it hard to allocate a
range of numbers to an irq controller that only has a fixed number of
irqs it can deal with is something I don't understand and I think
it is does a disservice to your users.  But that is all it is
a quality of implementation issue.  ia64 does the same foolish
thing.

The only time it really makes sense to me to let the irq number vary
arbitrary are when things are truly dynamic, like with MSI, a
hypervisor, or hot plug interrupt controllers.

> Another option would be to have the irq_desc be created by the arch and
> "embedded" in a larger data structure, in which case the HW number would
> be part of the private part of that data structure. Though I suppose
> that could be a problem with ISA...

This definitely what I intend to have the gneirq code start allowing.
For all intents and purposes we already do this today.

> I suspect that for backward compatibility, we will need to keep
> something (optionally maybe via CONFIG_*) for ISA/legacy interrupts.
> That is a 16 entries irq_desc* array, so we can go from a legacy IRQ
> number to an irq_desc on platform that have legacy/ISA crap floating
> around.

Yes.

> On powerpc, what I do is that I always reserve entries 0...15 of my
> remapping array in such a way that linux virtual irq 0 is always
> reserved, and 1...15 are only ever assigned to legacy interrupts if they
> exist in the system, or left unassigned if they don't.

Yep.  Once we are done you can remove the reserve on 0.  And leave
0..15 only ever assigned to ISA style interrupts if they are in the
system.

I really don't like the term legacy or old/new, when referring to
things.  Because today's current hip/new is tomorrow legacy and
we have lots of generations of hardware.  

If we want to throw the legacy term around I hereby designate all non
MSI-X interrupt controllers legacy.

>> I think we can make this change fairly smoothly if before the code is
>> merged into Linus's tree we have a patchset prepared with a all of the
>> core infrastructure changes and a best effort at all of the driver
>> changes.  Then early some merge window we merge the patchset, and
>> fixup the drivers that were missed.
>
> As long as we do things properly and not with a big "DESIGNED FOR x86"
> hack in the middle that makes it hard for everybody else, I agree.

Sure, and I have the same issue with a big "DESIGNED FOR ppc" in the middle,
or "DESIGNED FOR arch/x".   However the unfortunate truth is that the x86
has enough volume that frequently other architectures use some x86
hardware and thus get some of x86's warts.   So anything that doesn't
cope with the x86's warts is frequently doomed to failure.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/