[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    RE: [PATCH RESEND] x86/fixup_irq: Clean the offlining CPU from the irq affinity mask
From:       "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu () intel ! com>
Date:       2012-10-09 8:51:33
Message-ID: 27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A19171C () SHSMSX101 ! ccr ! corp ! intel ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

One suggestion below, thanks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Siddha, Suresh B
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 6:46 AM
> To: Srivatsa S. Bhat
> Cc: Liu, Chuansheng; tglx@linutronix.de; mingo@redhat.com; x86@kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com; Paul E.
> McKenney; Peter Zijlstra; rusty@rustcorp.com.au
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/fixup_irq: Clean the offlining CPU from the irq
> affinity mask
> 
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 23:00 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On 09/26/2012 10:36 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 21:33 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > > I have some fundamental questions here:
> > > > 1. Why was the CPU never removed from the affinity masks in the original
> > > > code? I find it hard to believe that it was just an oversight, because the
> > > > whole point of fixup_irqs() is to affine the interrupts to other CPUs, IIUC.
> > > > So, is that really a bug or is the existing code correct for some reason
> > > > which I don't know of?
> > > 
> > > I am not aware of the history but my guess is that the affinity mask
> > > which is coming from the user-space wants to be preserved. And
> > > fixup_irqs() is fixing the underlying interrupt routing when the cpu
> > > goes down
> > 
> > and the code that corresponds to that is:
> > irq_force_complete_move(irq); is it?
> 
> No. irq_set_affinity()
> 
> > > with a hope that things will be corrected when the cpu comes
> > > back online. But  as Liu noted, we are not correcting the underlying
> > > routing when the cpu comes back online. I think we should fix that
> > > rather than modifying the user-specified affinity.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm, I didn't entirely get your suggestion. Are you saying that we should
> change
> > data->affinity (by calling ->irq_set_affinity()) during offline but maintain a
> > copy of the original affinity mask somewhere, so that we can try to match it
> > when possible (ie., when CPU comes back online)?
> 
> Don't change the data->affinity in the fixup_irqs() and shortly after a
> cpu is online, call irq_chip's irq_set_affinity() for those irq's who
> affinity included this cpu (now that the cpu is back online,
> irq_set_affinity() will setup the HW routing tables correctly).
> 
> This presumes that across the suspend/resume, cpu offline/online
> operations, we don't want to break the irq affinity setup by the
> user-level entity like irqbalance etc...
> 
In fixup_irqs(), could we untouch the data->affinity, but calling \
->irq_set_affinity() without offlined CPU. If so, the better affinity is set, and \
user-space can use the data->affinity correctly, also new affinity setting will and \
online cpus.

> > > That happens only if the irq chip doesn't have the irq_set_affinity() setup.
> > 
> > That is my other point of concern : setting irq affinity can fail even if
> > we have ->irq_set_affinity(). (If __ioapic_set_affinity() fails, for example).
> > Why don't we complain in that case? I think we should... and if its serious
> > enough, abort the hotplug operation or atleast indicate that offline failed..
> 
> yes if there is a failure then we are in trouble, as the cpu is already
> disappeared from the online-masks etc. For platforms with
> interrupt-remapping, interrupts can be migrated from the process context
> and as such this all can be done much before.
> 
> And for legacy platforms we have done quite a few changes in the recent
> past like using eoi_ioapic_irq() for level triggered interrupts etc,
> that makes it as safe as it can be. Perhaps we can move most of the
> fixup_irqs() code much ahead and the lost section of the current
> fixup_irqs() (which check IRR bits and use the retrigger function to
> trigger the interrupt on another cpu) can still be done late just like
> now.
> 
> thanks,
> suresh

--
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/


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]