linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/fixup_irq: Clean the offlining CPU from the irq affinity mask

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5062A442.2030207@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:14:18 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
CC:	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fixup_irq: Clean the offlining CPU from the irq affinity
 mask

On 09/26/2012 08:02 PM, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> 
> When one CPU is going offline, and fixup_irqs() will re-set the
> irq affinity in some cases, we should clean the offlining CPU from
> the irq affinity.
> 
> The reason is setting offlining CPU as of the affinity is useless.
> Moreover, the smp_affinity value will be confusing when the
> offlining CPU come back again.
> 
> Example:
> For irq 93 with 4 CPUS, the default affinity f(1111),
> normal cases: 4 CPUS will receive the irq93 interrupts.
> 
> When echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/online, just CPU0,1,2 will
> receive the interrupts.
> 
> But after the CPU3 is online again, we will not set affinity,the result
> will be:
> the smp_affinity is f, but still just CPU0,1,2 can receive the interrupts.
> 
> So we should clean the offlining CPU from irq affinity mask
> in fixup_irqs().
> 
> Signed-off-by: liu chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/irq.c |    4 +++-
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> index d44f782..671d462 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
> @@ -239,6 +239,7 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
>  	struct irq_desc *desc;
>  	struct irq_data *data;
>  	struct irq_chip *chip;
> +	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> 
>  	for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
>  		int break_affinity = 0;
> @@ -271,7 +272,8 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
>  		if (cpumask_any_and(affinity, cpu_online_mask) >= nr_cpu_ids) {
>  			break_affinity = 1;
>  			affinity = cpu_online_mask;
> -		}
> +		} else if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, data->affinity))
> +			cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, data->affinity);
> 

You meant to use 'affinity' (instead of data->affinity) in the above 2 statements
right? Note that we do chip->irq_set_affinity(data, affinity, true); further down.

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

>  		chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip(data);
>  		if (!irqd_can_move_in_process_context(data) && chip->irq_mask)
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/