External email: Use caution opening links or attachments


On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 23:24:38 +0100,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> (+ Marc)
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 23:40, Ashish Singhal <ashishsingha@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > In an interrupt handler for the timers, it is important that
> > software clears the interrupt before deactivating the interrupt
> > in the GIC. Otherwise the GIC will re-signal the same interrupt
> > again.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ashish Singhal <ashishsingha@nvidia.com>
>
> Please don't spam us with almost identical versions of the same patch
> without even documenting what the difference is.
>
>
> > ---
> >  ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c | 9 +++++----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c b/ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c
> > index 0370620fae..46e5bbf287 100644
> > --- a/ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c
> > +++ b/ArmPkg/Drivers/TimerDxe/TimerDxe.c
> > @@ -300,10 +300,6 @@ TimerInterruptHandler (
> >    //
> >    OriginalTPL = gBS->RaiseTPL (TPL_HIGH_LEVEL);
> >
> > -  // Signal end of interrupt early to help avoid losing subsequent ticks
> > -  // from long duration handlers
> > -  gInterrupt->EndOfInterrupt (gInterrupt, Source);
> > -
> >    // Check if the timer interrupt is active
> >    if ((ArmGenericTimerGetTimerCtrlReg () ) & ARM_ARCH_TIMER_ISTATUS) {
> >
> > @@ -335,6 +331,11 @@ TimerInterruptHandler (
> >      ArmInstructionSynchronizationBarrier ();
> >    }
> >
> > +  // In an interrupt handler for the timers, it is important that software clears the interrupt
> > +  // before deactivating the interrupt in the GIC. Otherwise the GIC will re-signal the same
> > +  // interrupt again.
> > +  gInterrupt->EndOfInterrupt (gInterrupt, Source);
> > +
> >    gBS->RestoreTPL (OriginalTPL);
> >  }
> >

This isn't a requirement if you haven't re-enabled interrupts in
PSTATE (and the TPL being raised seems to indicate that interrupts are
actively masked here).

The timer is a level interrupt, and lowering the level takes time. If
your GIC implementation is good, it will notice that the lowering of
the level quickly, before you can reach the point where you re-enable
interrupts. If it is slow (or badly emulated if this is actually done
in a hypervisor), you'll get a spurious interrupt.

In any case, moving the EOI around doesn't make things any better. You
are just moving the goal post, without additional guarantees that the
level has been retired.

As a consequence, I don't think this patch makes much sense.

        M.

--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.