[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52C18C6B.8090802@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:08:27 -0500
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To: rui wang <ruiv.wang@...il.com>
CC: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86-ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
Yang Zhang <yang.z.zhang@...el.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
janet.morgan@...el.com, "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
chen gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Add check for number of available vectors before
CPU down [v2]
On 12/30/2013 07:56 AM, rui wang wrote:
> An irq can be mapped to only one vector number, but can have multiple
> destination CPUs. i.e. the same irq/vector can appear on multiple
> CPUs' vector_irq[]. So checking data->affinity is necessary I think.
That's true Rui -- but here's what I think the scenario actually is.
Suppose we have a 4-cpu system, and we have an IRQ that is mapped to multiple
cpu's vector_irq[]. For example, we have IRQ 200 that is mapped to CPU 2
vector_irq[50], and CPU 3 vector_irq[60].
Now I 'echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/online'.
cpu_disable is called and the kernel migrates IRQs off to other cpus.
Regardless if IRQ 200 is already mapped to CPU2 vector_irq[50], the mapping for
CPU 3 vector_irq[60] *must be migrated* to another CPU. It has a valid irq
handler and the IRQ is active. It doesn't just disappear because the CPU went down.
ie) AFAICT we should not differentiate between a multiple mapped IRQ and a
singly mapped IRQ when traversing the vector_irq[] for CPU 3.
I'm probably being dense on this but I'm not seeing a problem with migrating the
IRQ.
> But notice that data->affinity is updated in chip->irq_set_affinity()
> inside fixup_irqs(), while cpu_online_mask is updated in
> remove_cpu_from_maps() inside cpu_disable_common().
It shouldn't matter that the maps are updated in different areas during the
execution as we're in stop_machine().
They are updated
> in different places. So the algorithm to check them against each other
> should be different, depending on where you put the check_vectors().
> That's my understanding.
>
P.
> Thanks
> Rui
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists