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; t...@linutronix.de; mi...@redhat.com; x...@kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; yanmin_zh...@linux.intel.com; Paul E.
> McKenney; Peter Zijlstra; ru...@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
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a���
0��h���i
