[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52C33581.1030204@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 16:22:09 -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 09:58 PM, rui wang wrote:
> On 12/30/13, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/30/2013 07:56 AM, rui wang wrote:
>>
> ...
>> Okay, so the big issue is that we need to do the calculation without this cpu,
>
>>
>> int check_irq_vectors_for_cpu_disable(void)
>> {
>> int irq, cpu;
>> unsigned int vector, this_count, count;
>> struct irq_desc *desc;
>> struct irq_data *data;
>> struct cpumask online_new; /* cpu_online_mask - this_cpu */
>> struct cpumask affinity_new; /* affinity - this_cpu */
>>
>> cpumask_copy(&online_new, cpu_online_mask);
>> cpu_clear(smp_processor_id(), online_new);
>>
>> this_count = 0;
>> for (vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR; vector < NR_VECTORS; vector++) {
>> irq = __this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector]);
>> if (irq >= 0) {
>> desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
>> data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc);
>> cpumask_copy(&affinity_new, data->affinity);
>> cpu_clear(smp_processor_id(), affinity_new);
>> if (irq_has_action(irq) && !irqd_is_per_cpu(data) &&
>> !cpumask_subset(&affinity_new, &online_new) &&
>> !cpumask_empty(&affinity_new))
>
> If this cpu is the only target, then affinity_new becomes empty.
> Should we count it for migration?
Okay, how about,
if (irq_has_action(irq) && !irqd_is_per_cpu(data) &&
((!cpumask_empty(&affinity_new)) &&
!cpumask_subset(&affinity_new, &online_new)) ||
cpumask_empty(&affinity_new))
this_count++;
I tried this with the following examples and AFAICT I get the correct result:
1) affinity mask = online mask = 0xf. CPU 3 (1000b) is down'd.
this_count is not incremented.
2) affinity mask is a non-zero subset of the online mask (which IMO is
the "typical" case). For example, affinity_mask = 0x9, online mask = 0xf. CPU
3 is again down'd.
this_count is not incremented.
3) affinity_mask = 0x1, online mask = 0x3. (this is your example). CPU
1 is going down.
this_count is incremented, as the resulting affinity mask will be 0.
4) affinity_mask = 0x0, online mask = 0x7. CPU 1 is going down.
this_count is incremented, as the affinity mask is 0.
P.
--
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