[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
.set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any possible
CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.

This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
timer interrupts.

Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
---
 drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
index ee7c503..5f0797e 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
@@ -250,6 +250,15 @@ static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask_val,
 	unsigned int cpu = cpumask_any_and(mask_val, cpu_online_mask);
 	u32 val, mask, bit;
 
+	/*
+	 * If no online CPU could be found, fall back to any possible CPU.
+	 *
+	 * This is to allow setting affinity of some interrupts to a CPU
+	 * before it is marked as online, i.e. local timer initialization.
+	 */
+	if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
+		cpu = cpumask_any_and(mask_val, cpu_possible_mask);
+
 	if (cpu >= NR_GIC_CPU_IF || cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-- 
1.8.3.2

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
.set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any possible
CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.

This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
timer interrupts.

Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
---
 drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
index ee7c503..5f0797e 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
@@ -250,6 +250,15 @@ static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask_val,
 	unsigned int cpu = cpumask_any_and(mask_val, cpu_online_mask);
 	u32 val, mask, bit;
 
+	/*
+	 * If no online CPU could be found, fall back to any possible CPU.
+	 *
+	 * This is to allow setting affinity of some interrupts to a CPU
+	 * before it is marked as online, i.e. local timer initialization.
+	 */
+	if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
+		cpu = cpumask_any_and(mask_val, cpu_possible_mask);
+
 	if (cpu >= NR_GIC_CPU_IF || cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-- 
1.8.3.2

Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Stephen Boyd]

On 08/20/13 09:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any possible
> CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
>
> This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
> 	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
> caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
> timer interrupts.

Care to elaborate further? I don't see how the interrupt affinity is set
for a CPU that isn't online because the mct code runs on the CPU that
the affinity is being set to.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Stephen Boyd]

On 08/20/13 09:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any possible
> CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
>
> This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
> 	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
> caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
> timer interrupts.

Care to elaborate further? I don't see how the interrupt affinity is set
for a CPU that isn't online because the mct code runs on the CPU that
the affinity is being set to.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 09:33:31 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/20/13 09:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> > for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> > .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> > possible
> > CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> > 
> > This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
> > 
> > 	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
> > 
> > caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
> > timer interrupts.
> 
> Care to elaborate further? I don't see how the interrupt affinity is set
> for a CPU that isn't online because the mct code runs on the CPU that
> the affinity is being set to.

Well, please look at secondary_start_kernel() in arch/arm/kernel/smp.c [1]. 
You can see that notify_cpu_starting() (line 348) that fires the notifier 
registered in MCT driver is called before set_cpu_online() (line 359) that 
marks the CPU as online. Also notice that, originally, local timer 
initialization was happening after set_cpu_online() - see line 365.

[1] - http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c?a=arm#L312

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 09:33:31 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/20/13 09:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> > for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> > .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> > possible
> > CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> > 
> > This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
> > 
> > 	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
> > 
> > caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
> > timer interrupts.
> 
> Care to elaborate further? I don't see how the interrupt affinity is set
> for a CPU that isn't online because the mct code runs on the CPU that
> the affinity is being set to.

Well, please look at secondary_start_kernel() in arch/arm/kernel/smp.c [1]. 
You can see that notify_cpu_starting() (line 348) that fires the notifier 
registered in MCT driver is called before set_cpu_online() (line 359) that 
marks the CPU as online. Also notice that, originally, local timer 
initialization was happening after set_cpu_online() - see line 365.

[1] - http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c?a=arm#L312

Best regards,
Tomasz

Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Stephen Boyd]

On 08/20/13 09:41, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 09:33:31 Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 08/20/13 09:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
>>> for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
>>> .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
>>> possible
>>> CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
>>>
>>> This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
>>>
>>> 	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
>>>
>>> caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
>>> timer interrupts.
>> Care to elaborate further? I don't see how the interrupt affinity is set
>> for a CPU that isn't online because the mct code runs on the CPU that
>> the affinity is being set to.
> Well, please look at secondary_start_kernel() in arch/arm/kernel/smp.c [1]. 
> You can see that notify_cpu_starting() (line 348) that fires the notifier 
> registered in MCT driver is called before set_cpu_online() (line 359) that 
> marks the CPU as online. Also notice that, originally, local timer 
> initialization was happening after set_cpu_online() - see line 365.
>
>

Great, thank you. Please put this information in the commit text next time.

I wonder if we shouldn't make the cpumask_any_and() work on the present
mask instead? If we ever support physical hotplug on ARM I think we
wouldn't want to allow interrupts to go to CPUs that aren't even present
(but still possible).

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Stephen Boyd]

On 08/20/13 09:41, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 09:33:31 Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 08/20/13 09:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
>>> for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
>>> .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
>>> possible
>>> CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
>>>
>>> This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
>>>
>>> 	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
>>>
>>> caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
>>> timer interrupts.
>> Care to elaborate further? I don't see how the interrupt affinity is set
>> for a CPU that isn't online because the mct code runs on the CPU that
>> the affinity is being set to.
> Well, please look at secondary_start_kernel() in arch/arm/kernel/smp.c [1]. 
> You can see that notify_cpu_starting() (line 348) that fires the notifier 
> registered in MCT driver is called before set_cpu_online() (line 359) that 
> marks the CPU as online. Also notice that, originally, local timer 
> initialization was happening after set_cpu_online() - see line 365.
>
>

Great, thank you. Please put this information in the commit text next time.

I wonder if we shouldn't make the cpumask_any_and() work on the present
mask instead? If we ever support physical hotplug on ARM I think we
wouldn't want to allow interrupts to go to CPUs that aren't even present
(but still possible).

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 09:48:25 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/20/13 09:41, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 09:33:31 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> On 08/20/13 09:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>> Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline
> >>> CPU,
> >>> for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> >>> .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> >>> possible
> >>> CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> >>> 
> >>> This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
> >>> 
> >>> 	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
> >>> 
> >>> caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
> >>> timer interrupts.
> >> 
> >> Care to elaborate further? I don't see how the interrupt affinity is
> >> set
> >> for a CPU that isn't online because the mct code runs on the CPU that
> >> the affinity is being set to.
> > 
> > Well, please look at secondary_start_kernel() in arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> > [1]. You can see that notify_cpu_starting() (line 348) that fires the
> > notifier registered in MCT driver is called before set_cpu_online()
> > (line 359) that marks the CPU as online. Also notice that, originally,
> > local timer initialization was happening after set_cpu_online() - see
> > line 365.
> Great, thank you. Please put this information in the commit text next
> time.

Right, I could have added a sentence or two about this.

> I wonder if we shouldn't make the cpumask_any_and() work on the present
> mask instead? If we ever support physical hotplug on ARM I think we
> wouldn't want to allow interrupts to go to CPUs that aren't even present
> (but still possible).

Yes, cpu_present_mask might be better indeed.

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 09:48:25 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/20/13 09:41, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 09:33:31 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> On 08/20/13 09:11, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>> Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline
> >>> CPU,
> >>> for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> >>> .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> >>> possible
> >>> CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> >>> 
> >>> This fixes broken Exynos4210 support since commit
> >>> 
> >>> 	ee98d27df6 ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
> >>> 
> >>> caused by timer initialization code unable to set affinity for local
> >>> timer interrupts.
> >> 
> >> Care to elaborate further? I don't see how the interrupt affinity is
> >> set
> >> for a CPU that isn't online because the mct code runs on the CPU that
> >> the affinity is being set to.
> > 
> > Well, please look at secondary_start_kernel() in arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
> > [1]. You can see that notify_cpu_starting() (line 348) that fires the
> > notifier registered in MCT driver is called before set_cpu_online()
> > (line 359) that marks the CPU as online. Also notice that, originally,
> > local timer initialization was happening after set_cpu_online() - see
> > line 365.
> Great, thank you. Please put this information in the commit text next
> time.

Right, I could have added a sentence or two about this.

> I wonder if we shouldn't make the cpumask_any_and() work on the present
> mask instead? If we ever support physical hotplug on ARM I think we
> wouldn't want to allow interrupts to go to CPUs that aren't even present
> (but still possible).

Yes, cpu_present_mask might be better indeed.

Best regards,
Tomasz

Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 06:11:10PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any possible
> CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.

Err, this is a bad idea.  If a CPU is offline, then it must not respond
to interrupts.  If you bind an interrupt to an offline CPU, and that
device asserts its interrupt, what happens?  It doesn't get serviced
until that CPU comes back online, which may be a very long time.

If, for example, that is your network device, it would mean your
network stops operating.  Worse, the network layer will time out and
reset the ethernet device, trying to get things working (which it
won't.)

I think how I used to handle this case prior to genirq is that I fell
back to any online CPU if the interrupt ended up only routed to offline
CPUs, but when an offline CPU comes back, it could then be re-routed
back to that CPU.  In other words, the mask change was non-destructive.

I think with genirq, such mask changes are destructive.

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 06:11:10PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any possible
> CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.

Err, this is a bad idea.  If a CPU is offline, then it must not respond
to interrupts.  If you bind an interrupt to an offline CPU, and that
device asserts its interrupt, what happens?  It doesn't get serviced
until that CPU comes back online, which may be a very long time.

If, for example, that is your network device, it would mean your
network stops operating.  Worse, the network layer will time out and
reset the ethernet device, trying to get things working (which it
won't.)

I think how I used to handle this case prior to genirq is that I fell
back to any online CPU if the interrupt ended up only routed to offline
CPUs, but when an offline CPU comes back, it could then be re-routed
back to that CPU.  In other words, the mask change was non-destructive.

I think with genirq, such mask changes are destructive.

Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 22:14:42 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 06:11:10PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> > for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> > .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> > possible CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> 
> Err, this is a bad idea.  If a CPU is offline, then it must not respond
> to interrupts.  If you bind an interrupt to an offline CPU, and that
> device asserts its interrupt, what happens?  It doesn't get serviced
> until that CPU comes back online, which may be a very long time.
> 
> If, for example, that is your network device, it would mean your
> network stops operating.  Worse, the network layer will time out and
> reset the ethernet device, trying to get things working (which it
> won't.)
> 
> I think how I used to handle this case prior to genirq is that I fell
> back to any online CPU if the interrupt ended up only routed to offline
> CPUs, but when an offline CPU comes back, it could then be re-routed
> back to that CPU.  In other words, the mask change was non-destructive.
> 
> I think with genirq, such mask changes are destructive.

Yes, that's correct. Although if you _explicitly_ request the interrupt to 
be routed to an offline CPU (i.e. only offline CPUs have bits set in 
passed cpumask), is it an error?

There is at least one irqchip that does not check received cpumask for 
this (metag) and I don't see any documentation saying what should happen 
in this case in .set_affinity operation.

Still, if you have any better solution for the original problem (broken 
Exynos4210 local timers, due to failing irq_set_affinity()), then I'd 
appreciate it, as I don't like the one from this patch too much either.

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 22:14:42 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 06:11:10PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> > for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> > .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> > possible CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> 
> Err, this is a bad idea.  If a CPU is offline, then it must not respond
> to interrupts.  If you bind an interrupt to an offline CPU, and that
> device asserts its interrupt, what happens?  It doesn't get serviced
> until that CPU comes back online, which may be a very long time.
> 
> If, for example, that is your network device, it would mean your
> network stops operating.  Worse, the network layer will time out and
> reset the ethernet device, trying to get things working (which it
> won't.)
> 
> I think how I used to handle this case prior to genirq is that I fell
> back to any online CPU if the interrupt ended up only routed to offline
> CPUs, but when an offline CPU comes back, it could then be re-routed
> back to that CPU.  In other words, the mask change was non-destructive.
> 
> I think with genirq, such mask changes are destructive.

Yes, that's correct. Although if you _explicitly_ request the interrupt to 
be routed to an offline CPU (i.e. only offline CPUs have bits set in 
passed cpumask), is it an error?

There is at least one irqchip that does not check received cpumask for 
this (metag) and I don't see any documentation saying what should happen 
in this case in .set_affinity operation.

Still, if you have any better solution for the original problem (broken 
Exynos4210 local timers, due to failing irq_set_affinity()), then I'd 
appreciate it, as I don't like the one from this patch too much either.

Best regards,
Tomasz

Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Stephen Boyd]

On 08/21, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 22:14:42 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 06:11:10PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> > > for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> > > .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> > > possible CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> > 
> > Err, this is a bad idea.  If a CPU is offline, then it must not respond
> > to interrupts.  If you bind an interrupt to an offline CPU, and that
> > device asserts its interrupt, what happens?  It doesn't get serviced
> > until that CPU comes back online, which may be a very long time.
> > 
> > If, for example, that is your network device, it would mean your
> > network stops operating.  Worse, the network layer will time out and
> > reset the ethernet device, trying to get things working (which it
> > won't.)
> > 
> > I think how I used to handle this case prior to genirq is that I fell
> > back to any online CPU if the interrupt ended up only routed to offline
> > CPUs, but when an offline CPU comes back, it could then be re-routed
> > back to that CPU.  In other words, the mask change was non-destructive.
> > 
> > I think with genirq, such mask changes are destructive.
> 
> Yes, that's correct. Although if you _explicitly_ request the interrupt to 
> be routed to an offline CPU (i.e. only offline CPUs have bits set in 
> passed cpumask), is it an error?
> 
> There is at least one irqchip that does not check received cpumask for 
> this (metag) and I don't see any documentation saying what should happen 
> in this case in .set_affinity operation.
> 
> Still, if you have any better solution for the original problem (broken 
> Exynos4210 local timers, due to failing irq_set_affinity()), then I'd 
> appreciate it, as I don't like the one from this patch too much either.
> 

One "solution" might be to change the irq affinity after the CPU
is marked online via the hotplug notifier chain. For a short
period of time the timer interrupt will go to a different CPU but
I don't see how that is a problem.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Stephen Boyd]

On 08/21, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 22:14:42 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 06:11:10PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline CPU,
> > > for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> > > .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> > > possible CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> > 
> > Err, this is a bad idea.  If a CPU is offline, then it must not respond
> > to interrupts.  If you bind an interrupt to an offline CPU, and that
> > device asserts its interrupt, what happens?  It doesn't get serviced
> > until that CPU comes back online, which may be a very long time.
> > 
> > If, for example, that is your network device, it would mean your
> > network stops operating.  Worse, the network layer will time out and
> > reset the ethernet device, trying to get things working (which it
> > won't.)
> > 
> > I think how I used to handle this case prior to genirq is that I fell
> > back to any online CPU if the interrupt ended up only routed to offline
> > CPUs, but when an offline CPU comes back, it could then be re-routed
> > back to that CPU.  In other words, the mask change was non-destructive.
> > 
> > I think with genirq, such mask changes are destructive.
> 
> Yes, that's correct. Although if you _explicitly_ request the interrupt to 
> be routed to an offline CPU (i.e. only offline CPUs have bits set in 
> passed cpumask), is it an error?
> 
> There is at least one irqchip that does not check received cpumask for 
> this (metag) and I don't see any documentation saying what should happen 
> in this case in .set_affinity operation.
> 
> Still, if you have any better solution for the original problem (broken 
> Exynos4210 local timers, due to failing irq_set_affinity()), then I'd 
> appreciate it, as I don't like the one from this patch too much either.
> 

One "solution" might be to change the irq affinity after the CPU
is marked online via the hotplug notifier chain. For a short
period of time the timer interrupt will go to a different CPU but
I don't see how that is a problem.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

[Copying Daniel]

On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 15:39:17 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/21, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 22:14:42 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 06:11:10PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline
> > > > CPU,
> > > > for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> > > > .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> > > > possible CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> > > 
> > > Err, this is a bad idea.  If a CPU is offline, then it must not
> > > respond
> > > to interrupts.  If you bind an interrupt to an offline CPU, and that
> > > device asserts its interrupt, what happens?  It doesn't get serviced
> > > until that CPU comes back online, which may be a very long time.
> > > 
> > > If, for example, that is your network device, it would mean your
> > > network stops operating.  Worse, the network layer will time out and
> > > reset the ethernet device, trying to get things working (which it
> > > won't.)
> > > 
> > > I think how I used to handle this case prior to genirq is that I fell
> > > back to any online CPU if the interrupt ended up only routed to
> > > offline
> > > CPUs, but when an offline CPU comes back, it could then be re-routed
> > > back to that CPU.  In other words, the mask change was
> > > non-destructive.
> > > 
> > > I think with genirq, such mask changes are destructive.
> > 
> > Yes, that's correct. Although if you _explicitly_ request the interrupt
> > to be routed to an offline CPU (i.e. only offline CPUs have bits set
> > in passed cpumask), is it an error?
> > 
> > There is at least one irqchip that does not check received cpumask for
> > this (metag) and I don't see any documentation saying what should
> > happen
> > in this case in .set_affinity operation.
> > 
> > Still, if you have any better solution for the original problem (broken
> > Exynos4210 local timers, due to failing irq_set_affinity()), then I'd
> > appreciate it, as I don't like the one from this patch too much either.
> 
> One "solution" might be to change the irq affinity after the CPU
> is marked online via the hotplug notifier chain. For a short
> period of time the timer interrupt will go to a different CPU but
> I don't see how that is a problem.

After initial testing, this seems to work, but but it still seems a little 
hackish.

I'd like to make sure that nothing bad happens if the irq somehow fires 
before setting the affinity. An opinion of someone that is more into kernel 
timekeeping than me would be nice.

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH] irqchip: gic: Allow setting affinity to offline CPUs

[Tomasz Figa]

[Copying Daniel]

On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 15:39:17 Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/21, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 of August 2013 22:14:42 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 06:11:10PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > Sometimes it is necessary to fix interrupt affinity to an offline
> > > > CPU,
> > > > for example in initialization of local timers. This patch modifies
> > > > .set_affinity() operation of irq-gic driver to fall back to any
> > > > possible CPU if no online CPU can be found in requested CPU mask.
> > > 
> > > Err, this is a bad idea.  If a CPU is offline, then it must not
> > > respond
> > > to interrupts.  If you bind an interrupt to an offline CPU, and that
> > > device asserts its interrupt, what happens?  It doesn't get serviced
> > > until that CPU comes back online, which may be a very long time.
> > > 
> > > If, for example, that is your network device, it would mean your
> > > network stops operating.  Worse, the network layer will time out and
> > > reset the ethernet device, trying to get things working (which it
> > > won't.)
> > > 
> > > I think how I used to handle this case prior to genirq is that I fell
> > > back to any online CPU if the interrupt ended up only routed to
> > > offline
> > > CPUs, but when an offline CPU comes back, it could then be re-routed
> > > back to that CPU.  In other words, the mask change was
> > > non-destructive.
> > > 
> > > I think with genirq, such mask changes are destructive.
> > 
> > Yes, that's correct. Although if you _explicitly_ request the interrupt
> > to be routed to an offline CPU (i.e. only offline CPUs have bits set
> > in passed cpumask), is it an error?
> > 
> > There is at least one irqchip that does not check received cpumask for
> > this (metag) and I don't see any documentation saying what should
> > happen
> > in this case in .set_affinity operation.
> > 
> > Still, if you have any better solution for the original problem (broken
> > Exynos4210 local timers, due to failing irq_set_affinity()), then I'd
> > appreciate it, as I don't like the one from this patch too much either.
> 
> One "solution" might be to change the irq affinity after the CPU
> is marked online via the hotplug notifier chain. For a short
> period of time the timer interrupt will go to a different CPU but
> I don't see how that is a problem.

After initial testing, this seems to work, but but it still seems a little 
hackish.

I'd like to make sure that nothing bad happens if the irq somehow fires 
before setting the affinity. An opinion of someone that is more into kernel 
timekeeping than me would be nice.

Best regards,
Tomasz