On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 14:40 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > On 01/16/2015 02:26 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > > On 01/16/2015 08:34 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >> On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 13:28 +1300, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > >>> On 01/16/2015 02:22 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > >>>> Hi Alexey, > >>>> > >>>> Can you let me know if the following patch fixes the issue for you ? > >>>> It did for us on one of our machines that we were investigating on. > >>> > >>> This fixes the issue for me as well, thanks! > >>> > >>> Tested-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> > >> > >> OK, that's great. > >> > >> But, I really don't think we can ask upstream to merge this patch to > >> generic > >> code when we don't have a good explanation for why it's necessary. At > >> least I'm > >> not going to ask anyone to do that :) > >> > >> So Pretti can you either write a 100% convincing explanation of why this > >> patch > >> is correct in the general case, or (preferably) do some more investigating > >> to > >> work out what Alexey's bug actually is. > > > > Yes will do so. Its better to investigate where precisely is the bug. > > This patch helped me narrow down on the buggy scenario. > > On a side note, while I was tracking the race condition, I noticed that > in the final stage of the cpu offline path, after the state of the > hotplugged cpu is set to CPU_DEAD, we check if there were interrupts > delivered during the soft disabled state and service them if there were. > It makes sense to check for pending interrupts in the idle path. In the > offline path however, this did not look right to me at first glance. Am > I missing something ?
That does sound a bit fishy. I guess we're just assuming that all interrupts have been migrated away prior to the offline? cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev