linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] genirq/proc: Show percpu irq affinity

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <9f8b9f2f-b5f9-35c8-ff5e-22b5d0f347bb@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:39:44 +0800
From:   Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Shiyuan Hu <hushiyuan@...wei.com>,
        Hewenliang <hewenliang4@...wei.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq/proc: Show percpu irq affinity



On 2020/8/22 19:35, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22 2020 at 17:33, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>> On 2020/8/13 16:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> For example, the cmdline "irqaffinity=0,1,126,127" on the 128 cores system：
>>
>> [root@...alhost ~]# cat /proc/irq/4/smp_affinity_list
>> 0-1,126-127
>>
>> The irq 4 is "arch_timer" interrupt, which is a percpu interrupt.
>>
>> So is it necessary to show the percpu irq affinity correct?
> 
> Yes, it makes sense to do so, but you used the wrong check. The correct
> one is:
> 
> irq_settings_is_per_cpu_devid()
> 
> which will not wreckage the output for other per cpu marked interrupts
> which never set the percpu_affinity pointer with the obvious
> consequences... The pointer would need a NULL check in any case, but it
> might be more straight forward to update affinity when percpu_affinity
> is initialized. Haven't looked in detail though.
> 
ok, I will send the patch v2, thanks.

> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> 
> .
>