[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201130095549.27da927f.pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 09:55:49 +0100
From: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] s390/pci: fix CPU address in MSI for directed IRQ
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 09:30:33 +0100
Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> I'm not really familiar, with it but I think this is closely related
> to what I asked Bernd Nerz. I fear that if CPUs go away we might already
> be in trouble at the firmware/hardware/platform level because the CPU Address is
> "programmed into the device" so to speak. Thus a directed interrupt from
> a device may race with anything reordering/removing CPUs even if
> CPU addresses of dead CPUs are not reused and the mapping is stable.
From your answer, I read that CPU hot-unplug is supported for LPAR.
>
> Furthermore our floating fallback path will try to send a SIGP
> to the target CPU which clearly doesn't work when that is permanently
> gone. Either way I think these issues are out of scope for this fix
> so I will go ahead and merge this.
I agree, it makes on sense to delay this fix.
But if CPU hot-unplug is supported, I believe we should react when
a CPU is unplugged, that is a target of directed interrupts. My guess
is, that in this scenario transient hiccups are unavoidable, and thus
should be accepted, but we should make sure that we recover.
Regards,
Halil
Powered by blists - more mailing lists