| Message ID | 20160625123521.16752-1-digetx@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
V2: Patch applies cleanly to the QEMU master branch.
On 25/06/16 13:35, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > Software should see timer counter wrap around only after IRQ being triggered. > Change returned counter value to "1" for the expired timer and avoid returning > wrapped around counter value in periodic mode for the timer that has bottom-half > handler setup, assuming it drives timer IRQ. > > This fixes regression introduced by the commit 5a50307 ("hw/ptimer: Perform > counter wrap around if timer already expired") on SPARC emulated machine as > reported by Mark Cave-Ayland. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> > --- > hw/core/ptimer.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/core/ptimer.c b/hw/core/ptimer.c > index 05b0c27..8006442 100644 > --- a/hw/core/ptimer.c > +++ b/hw/core/ptimer.c > @@ -93,10 +93,10 @@ uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) > bool oneshot = (s->enabled == 2); > > /* Figure out the current counter value. */ > - if (s->period == 0 || (expired && (oneshot || use_icount))) { > + if (expired && (oneshot || use_icount || s->bh != NULL)) { > /* Prevent timer underflowing if it should already have > triggered. */ > - counter = 0; > + counter = 1; > } else { > uint64_t rem; > uint64_t div; > @@ -143,7 +143,9 @@ uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) > > if (expired && counter != 0) { > /* Wrap around periodic counter. */ > - counter = s->limit - (counter - 1) % s->limit; > + counter = s->delta = s->limit - (counter - 1) % s->limit; > + /* Re-arm timer according to the wrapped around value. */ > + ptimer_reload(s); > } > } > } else { > Hi Dmitry, I ran through all of my OpenBIOS test images for qemu-system-sparc and AFAICT this fixes the issue without introducing any further regressions so: Tested-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk> Many thanks, Mark.
On 25.06.2016 16:20, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > On 25/06/16 13:35, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >> Software should see timer counter wrap around only after IRQ being triggered. >> Change returned counter value to "1" for the expired timer and avoid returning >> wrapped around counter value in periodic mode for the timer that has bottom-half >> handler setup, assuming it drives timer IRQ. >> >> This fixes regression introduced by the commit 5a50307 ("hw/ptimer: Perform >> counter wrap around if timer already expired") on SPARC emulated machine as >> reported by Mark Cave-Ayland. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> >> --- >> hw/core/ptimer.c | 8 +++++--- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/core/ptimer.c b/hw/core/ptimer.c >> index 05b0c27..8006442 100644 >> --- a/hw/core/ptimer.c >> +++ b/hw/core/ptimer.c >> @@ -93,10 +93,10 @@ uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) >> bool oneshot = (s->enabled == 2); >> >> /* Figure out the current counter value. */ >> - if (s->period == 0 || (expired && (oneshot || use_icount))) { >> + if (expired && (oneshot || use_icount || s->bh != NULL)) { >> /* Prevent timer underflowing if it should already have >> triggered. */ >> - counter = 0; >> + counter = 1; >> } else { >> uint64_t rem; >> uint64_t div; >> @@ -143,7 +143,9 @@ uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) >> >> if (expired && counter != 0) { >> /* Wrap around periodic counter. */ >> - counter = s->limit - (counter - 1) % s->limit; >> + counter = s->delta = s->limit - (counter - 1) % s->limit; >> + /* Re-arm timer according to the wrapped around value. */ >> + ptimer_reload(s); >> } >> } >> } else { >> > > Hi Dmitry, > > I ran through all of my OpenBIOS test images for qemu-system-sparc and AFAICT > this fixes the issue without introducing any further regressions so: > > Tested-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@ilande.co.uk> > > > Many thanks, > > Mark. > Great! Thanks for testing it.
On 25 June 2016 at 13:35, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: > Software should see timer counter wrap around only after IRQ being triggered. > Change returned counter value to "1" for the expired timer and avoid returning > wrapped around counter value in periodic mode for the timer that has bottom-half > handler setup, assuming it drives timer IRQ. > > This fixes regression introduced by the commit 5a50307 ("hw/ptimer: Perform > counter wrap around if timer already expired") on SPARC emulated machine as > reported by Mark Cave-Ayland. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> > --- > hw/core/ptimer.c | 8 +++++--- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/core/ptimer.c b/hw/core/ptimer.c > index 05b0c27..8006442 100644 > --- a/hw/core/ptimer.c > +++ b/hw/core/ptimer.c > @@ -93,10 +93,10 @@ uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) > bool oneshot = (s->enabled == 2); > > /* Figure out the current counter value. */ > - if (s->period == 0 || (expired && (oneshot || use_icount))) { > + if (expired && (oneshot || use_icount || s->bh != NULL)) { > /* Prevent timer underflowing if it should already have > triggered. */ > - counter = 0; > + counter = 1; > } else { > uint64_t rem; > uint64_t div; I guess this fixes a regression, but it looks really weird. Why should the timer behaviour change if there happens to be a bottom half present? That should be an internal implementation detail. It's also a bit odd that use_icount is in the check: that shouldn't generally affect device emulation behaviour... thanks -- PMM
On 27.06.2016 16:27, Peter Maydell wrote: > I guess this fixes a regression, but it looks really weird. > Why should the timer behaviour change if there happens to be > a bottom half present? That should be an internal implementation > detail. It's also a bit odd that use_icount is in the check: > that shouldn't generally affect device emulation behaviour... In case of a polled timer that doesn't have ptimer trigger bottom half callback setup, we are free to wrap around counter since timer behaviour isn't changed from ptimer user perspective, as it won't be able to change it's state in the handler. I just decided to keep that wraparound feature for a case of a polled free running timer, this should result in a better distribution of the polled value. The potential users of that feature are "imx_epit" and "digic" timer device models. I should have mentioned it in the commit message to avoid confusion, sorry. It is still an internal implementation detail, not sure what you are meaning. Could you elaborate, please? "use_icount" is redundant now and should be omitted, good point. This patch is supposed to fix IRQ set -> timer expire/counter wraparound ordering. I'm wondering whether we have same ordering issue with the scheduled ptimer trigger callback. I can imagine the following scenario: 1) ptimer_tick() -> periodic counter reloaded or set to "0" in oneshot mode and ptimer_trigger() schedules trigger callback 2) device uses ptimer_get_count() but the scheduled callback still pending execution. That should happen in the same QEMU "cycle" to cause a potential issue. Is this possible? I'm not familiar with how AIO scheduler works. The potential fix could be: to directly call trigger callback from ptimer_tick() after changing the delta value.
On 27 June 2016 at 19:26, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27.06.2016 16:27, Peter Maydell wrote: >> I guess this fixes a regression, but it looks really weird. >> Why should the timer behaviour change if there happens to be >> a bottom half present? That should be an internal implementation >> detail. It's also a bit odd that use_icount is in the check: >> that shouldn't generally affect device emulation behaviour... > > In case of a polled timer that doesn't have ptimer trigger bottom half callback > setup, we are free to wrap around counter since timer behaviour isn't changed > from ptimer user perspective, as it won't be able to change it's state in the > handler. > > I just decided to keep that wraparound feature for a case of a polled free > running timer, this should result in a better distribution of the polled value. > The potential users of that feature are "imx_epit" and "digic" timer device > models. I should have mentioned it in the commit message to avoid confusion, sorry. > > It is still an internal implementation detail, not sure what you are meaning. > Could you elaborate, please? What I meant was: ptimer_get_count() is typically called to generate a value to return from a register. That's a separate thing, conceptually, from whether the device happens to also trigger an interrupt on timer expiry by passing a bh to ptimer_init(). So it's very odd for a detail of interrupt-on-timer-expiry (that there is a bottom half) to affect the value returned when you read the timer count register. thanks -- PMM
On 30.06.2016 18:02, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 27 June 2016 at 19:26, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 27.06.2016 16:27, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> I guess this fixes a regression, but it looks really weird. >>> Why should the timer behaviour change if there happens to be >>> a bottom half present? That should be an internal implementation >>> detail. It's also a bit odd that use_icount is in the check: >>> that shouldn't generally affect device emulation behaviour... >> >> In case of a polled timer that doesn't have ptimer trigger bottom half callback >> setup, we are free to wrap around counter since timer behaviour isn't changed >> from ptimer user perspective, as it won't be able to change it's state in the >> handler. >> >> I just decided to keep that wraparound feature for a case of a polled free >> running timer, this should result in a better distribution of the polled value. >> The potential users of that feature are "imx_epit" and "digic" timer device >> models. I should have mentioned it in the commit message to avoid confusion, sorry. >> >> It is still an internal implementation detail, not sure what you are meaning. >> Could you elaborate, please? > > What I meant was: ptimer_get_count() is typically called to generate > a value to return from a register. That's a separate thing, conceptually, > from whether the device happens to also trigger an interrupt on timer > expiry by passing a bh to ptimer_init(). So it's very odd for a detail > of interrupt-on-timer-expiry (that there is a bottom half) to affect > the value returned when you read the timer count register. > In order to handle wraparound correctly, software needs to track the moment of the wraparound - the interrupt. If software reads wrapped around counter value before IRQ triggered (ptimer expired), then it would assume that no wraparound happened and won't perform counter value correction, resulting in periodic counter "jumping" backwards. Anything wrong with it? Am I missing something?
On 30 June 2016 at 20:01, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30.06.2016 18:02, Peter Maydell wrote: >> What I meant was: ptimer_get_count() is typically called to generate >> a value to return from a register. That's a separate thing, conceptually, >> from whether the device happens to also trigger an interrupt on timer >> expiry by passing a bh to ptimer_init(). So it's very odd for a detail >> of interrupt-on-timer-expiry (that there is a bottom half) to affect >> the value returned when you read the timer count register. > In order to handle wraparound correctly, software needs to track the moment of > the wraparound - the interrupt. If software reads wrapped around counter value > before IRQ triggered (ptimer expired), then it would assume that no wraparound > happened and won't perform counter value correction, resulting in periodic > counter "jumping" backwards. That just says you need particular behaviour between counter reads and IRQ triggers; it doesn't say that you need the behaviour to be different if the ptimer code doesn't know about the IRQ trigger. thanks -- PMM
On 01.07.2016 19:36, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 30 June 2016 at 20:01, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 30.06.2016 18:02, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> What I meant was: ptimer_get_count() is typically called to generate >>> a value to return from a register. That's a separate thing, conceptually, >>> from whether the device happens to also trigger an interrupt on timer >>> expiry by passing a bh to ptimer_init(). So it's very odd for a detail >>> of interrupt-on-timer-expiry (that there is a bottom half) to affect >>> the value returned when you read the timer count register. > >> In order to handle wraparound correctly, software needs to track the moment of >> the wraparound - the interrupt. If software reads wrapped around counter value >> before IRQ triggered (ptimer expired), then it would assume that no wraparound >> happened and won't perform counter value correction, resulting in periodic >> counter "jumping" backwards. > > That just says you need particular behaviour between counter reads > and IRQ triggers; it doesn't say that you need the behaviour to be > different if the ptimer code doesn't know about the IRQ trigger. > Okay, I already explained the reason for having two different behaviours - to make polled counter value more distributed when possible. If I understand you correctly, you don't like it because it is "odd" and I agree that it's a bit clumsy. So, what we are going to do now? Would you just revert the offending commit or you have some other suggestions? I think we still need to change the returned counter value to "1" in case of the expired timer, since it would result in the deterministic behaviour across of all of the timers. However, it definitely feels like it should go into the standalone patch and I can include it into the next iteration of the ptimer patches.
On 1 July 2016 at 18:49, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01.07.2016 19:36, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 30 June 2016 at 20:01, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 30.06.2016 18:02, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> What I meant was: ptimer_get_count() is typically called to generate >>>> a value to return from a register. That's a separate thing, conceptually, >>>> from whether the device happens to also trigger an interrupt on timer >>>> expiry by passing a bh to ptimer_init(). So it's very odd for a detail >>>> of interrupt-on-timer-expiry (that there is a bottom half) to affect >>>> the value returned when you read the timer count register. >> >>> In order to handle wraparound correctly, software needs to track the moment of >>> the wraparound - the interrupt. If software reads wrapped around counter value >>> before IRQ triggered (ptimer expired), then it would assume that no wraparound >>> happened and won't perform counter value correction, resulting in periodic >>> counter "jumping" backwards. >> >> That just says you need particular behaviour between counter reads >> and IRQ triggers; it doesn't say that you need the behaviour to be >> different if the ptimer code doesn't know about the IRQ trigger. >> > > Okay, I already explained the reason for having two different behaviours - to > make polled counter value more distributed when possible. If I understand you > correctly, you don't like it because it is "odd" and I agree that it's a bit clumsy. > So, what we are going to do now? Would you just revert the offending commit or > you have some other suggestions? Well, we need to fix the regression, but basically I'm kind of confused at the moment. I haven't invested a lot of time in trying to understand the timer code, so all I can really do is say "this does not look like the right thing" and ask you to come up with a different fix for it. thanks -- PMM
On 4 July 2016 at 10:55, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > On 1 July 2016 at 18:49, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 01.07.2016 19:36, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 30 June 2016 at 20:01, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 30.06.2016 18:02, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>>> What I meant was: ptimer_get_count() is typically called to generate >>>>> a value to return from a register. That's a separate thing, conceptually, >>>>> from whether the device happens to also trigger an interrupt on timer >>>>> expiry by passing a bh to ptimer_init(). So it's very odd for a detail >>>>> of interrupt-on-timer-expiry (that there is a bottom half) to affect >>>>> the value returned when you read the timer count register. >>> >>>> In order to handle wraparound correctly, software needs to track the moment of >>>> the wraparound - the interrupt. If software reads wrapped around counter value >>>> before IRQ triggered (ptimer expired), then it would assume that no wraparound >>>> happened and won't perform counter value correction, resulting in periodic >>>> counter "jumping" backwards. >>> >>> That just says you need particular behaviour between counter reads >>> and IRQ triggers; it doesn't say that you need the behaviour to be >>> different if the ptimer code doesn't know about the IRQ trigger. >>> >> >> Okay, I already explained the reason for having two different behaviours - to >> make polled counter value more distributed when possible. If I understand you >> correctly, you don't like it because it is "odd" and I agree that it's a bit clumsy. > >> So, what we are going to do now? Would you just revert the offending commit or >> you have some other suggestions? > > Well, we need to fix the regression, but basically I'm kind of > confused at the moment. I haven't invested a lot of time in > trying to understand the timer code, so all I can really do > is say "this does not look like the right thing" and ask you > to come up with a different fix for it. My current best guess is that this condition should simply be "if (expired) {". thanks -- PMM
On 07.07.2016 13:53, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 4 July 2016 at 10:55, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 1 July 2016 at 18:49, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 01.07.2016 19:36, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 30 June 2016 at 20:01, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 30.06.2016 18:02, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>>>> What I meant was: ptimer_get_count() is typically called to generate >>>>>> a value to return from a register. That's a separate thing, conceptually, >>>>>> from whether the device happens to also trigger an interrupt on timer >>>>>> expiry by passing a bh to ptimer_init(). So it's very odd for a detail >>>>>> of interrupt-on-timer-expiry (that there is a bottom half) to affect >>>>>> the value returned when you read the timer count register. >>>> >>>>> In order to handle wraparound correctly, software needs to track the moment of >>>>> the wraparound - the interrupt. If software reads wrapped around counter value >>>>> before IRQ triggered (ptimer expired), then it would assume that no wraparound >>>>> happened and won't perform counter value correction, resulting in periodic >>>>> counter "jumping" backwards. >>>> >>>> That just says you need particular behaviour between counter reads >>>> and IRQ triggers; it doesn't say that you need the behaviour to be >>>> different if the ptimer code doesn't know about the IRQ trigger. >>>> >>> >>> Okay, I already explained the reason for having two different behaviours - to >>> make polled counter value more distributed when possible. If I understand you >>> correctly, you don't like it because it is "odd" and I agree that it's a bit clumsy. >> >>> So, what we are going to do now? Would you just revert the offending commit or >>> you have some other suggestions? >> >> Well, we need to fix the regression, but basically I'm kind of >> confused at the moment. I haven't invested a lot of time in >> trying to understand the timer code, so all I can really do >> is say "this does not look like the right thing" and ask you >> to come up with a different fix for it. > I'm currently leaning to the revert solution. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, will do it today and send patch after. > My current best guess is that this condition should simply be > "if (expired) {". > Since you are insisted that wraparound isn't a needed feature - yes, that's nearly the same what the original code did :)
diff --git a/hw/core/ptimer.c b/hw/core/ptimer.c index 05b0c27..8006442 100644 --- a/hw/core/ptimer.c +++ b/hw/core/ptimer.c @@ -93,10 +93,10 @@ uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) bool oneshot = (s->enabled == 2); /* Figure out the current counter value. */ - if (s->period == 0 || (expired && (oneshot || use_icount))) { + if (expired && (oneshot || use_icount || s->bh != NULL)) { /* Prevent timer underflowing if it should already have triggered. */ - counter = 0; + counter = 1; } else { uint64_t rem; uint64_t div; @@ -143,7 +143,9 @@ uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) if (expired && counter != 0) { /* Wrap around periodic counter. */ - counter = s->limit - (counter - 1) % s->limit; + counter = s->delta = s->limit - (counter - 1) % s->limit; + /* Re-arm timer according to the wrapped around value. */ + ptimer_reload(s); } } } else {
Software should see timer counter wrap around only after IRQ being triggered. Change returned counter value to "1" for the expired timer and avoid returning wrapped around counter value in periodic mode for the timer that has bottom-half handler setup, assuming it drives timer IRQ. This fixes regression introduced by the commit 5a50307 ("hw/ptimer: Perform counter wrap around if timer already expired") on SPARC emulated machine as reported by Mark Cave-Ayland. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> --- hw/core/ptimer.c | 8 +++++--- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)