From: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@suse.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>,
Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Revert "e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt"
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:40:26 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180208064026.ht4y5orcw4m5qyyl@f1.synalogic.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgT0Ucozb6kyFavZUo=enjhpJkkiHDz-bZYG=KcCLoD=ByqoQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2018/01/29 09:22, Alexander Duyck wrote:
[...]
>
> > Consequently, we must clear OTHER manually from ICR, otherwise the
> > interrupt is immediately re-raised after exiting the handler.
> >
> > These observations are the same whether the interrupt is triggered via a
> > write to ICS or in hardware.
> >
> > Furthermore, I tested that this behavior is the same for other Other
> > events (MDAC, SRPD, ACK, MNG). Those were tested via a write to ICS
> > only, not in hardware.
> >
> > This is a version of the test patch that I used to trigger lsc and rxo in
> > software and hardware. It applies over this patch series.
>
> I plan to look into this some more over the next few days. Ideally if
> we could mask these "OTHER" interrupts besides the LSC we could comply
> with all the needed bits for MSI-X. My concern is that we are still
> stuck reading the ICR at this point because of this and it is going to
> make dealing with MSI-X challenging on 82574 since it seems like the
> intention was that you weren't supposed to be reading the ICR when
> MSI-X is enabled based on the list of current issues and HW errata.
I totally agree with you that it looks like the msi-x interface was
designed so you don't need to read icr. That's also why I was happy to
go that direction with the (now infamous) commit 16ecba59bc33 ("e1000e:
Do not read ICR in Other interrupt", v4.5-rc1).
However, we looked at it before and there seems to be no way to mask
individual Other interrupt causes (masking rxo but getting lsc). Because
of that, I think we have to keep reading icr in the Other interrupt
handler.
>
> At this point it seems like the interrupts is firing and the
> INT_ASSERTED is all we really need to be checking for if I understand
> this all correctly. Basically if LSC is set it will trigger OTHER and
> INT_ASSERTED, if any of the other causes are set they are only setting
> OTHER.
I think that's right and it's related to the fact that currently LSC is
set in IMS but not the other causes. Since we have to read icr (as I
wrote above) but we want to avoid reading it without INT_ASSERTED set
(as per errata 12) the solution will be to set all of the causes related
to Other in IMS. Patches incoming...
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-08 6:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-26 9:12 [PATCH 0/3] e1000e: Revert interrupt handling changes Benjamin Poirier
2018-01-26 9:12 ` [PATCH 1/3] Partial revert "e1000e: Avoid receiver overrun interrupt bursts" Benjamin Poirier
2018-01-26 16:50 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-01-29 7:20 ` Benjamin Poirier
2018-01-29 15:42 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-01-26 9:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] Revert "e1000e: Separate signaling for link check/link up" Benjamin Poirier
2018-01-26 17:03 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-01-29 7:21 ` Benjamin Poirier
2018-01-29 15:48 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-02-26 2:31 ` [RFC PATCH] e1000e: Fix link check race condition Benjamin Poirier
2018-02-26 16:14 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-02-28 5:19 ` Benjamin Poirier
2018-01-26 9:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] Revert "e1000e: Do not read ICR in Other interrupt" Benjamin Poirier
2018-01-26 21:01 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-01-29 7:28 ` Benjamin Poirier
2018-01-29 17:22 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-02-08 6:40 ` Benjamin Poirier [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180208064026.ht4y5orcw4m5qyyl@f1.synalogic.ca \
--to=bpoirier@suse.com \
--cc=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®