All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] genirq: Change the non-balanced irq to balance irq when the cpu of the irq bounded off line
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:30:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56FE31A8.1020502@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1459481291-10136-1-git-send-email-majun258@huawei.com>

Hi Ma Jun,

On 01/04/16 04:28, MaJun wrote:
> From: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com>
> 
> When the CPU of a non-balanced irq bounded is off line, the irq will be migrated to other CPUs,
> usually the first cpu on-line.
> 
> We can suppose the situation if a system has more than one non-balanced irq.
> At extreme case, these irqs will be migrated to the same CPU and will cause the 
> CPU run with high irq pressure, even make the system die.

It would take a hell of lot of interrupts (and a very badly designed
system) for that system to collapse under the interrupt load. Whatever
people tend to think, interrupts are a very rare event.

Any moderately ancient CPU can take several hundred of thousand
interrupts per second, and you still barely notice it (try any embedded
platform with a bunch of MMC controllers...).

Now, let's get to the actual question:

> So, I think maybe we need to change the non-balanced irq to a irq can be
> balanced to avoid the problem descried above.

But what makes you think that you can safely clear that flag? If it has
been excluding from balancing, that's surely for a good reason, and the
device driver that requested this probably doesn't expect the interrupt
affinity to change, other than by the effect of CPU hotplug itself.

So if you're seeing a problem with an interrupt not being balanced,
please first investigate *why* the driver asked for it the first place.

But to the best of my understanding, this patch doesn't solve anything.

Thanks,

	N,
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: MaJun <majun258@huawei.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	lizefan@huawei.com, huxinwei@huawei.com, dingtianhong@huawei.com,
	guohanjun@huawei.com, wuyun.wu@huawei.com,
	yangyingliang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] genirq: Change the non-balanced irq to balance irq when the cpu of the irq bounded off line
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:30:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56FE31A8.1020502@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1459481291-10136-1-git-send-email-majun258@huawei.com>

Hi Ma Jun,

On 01/04/16 04:28, MaJun wrote:
> From: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com>
> 
> When the CPU of a non-balanced irq bounded is off line, the irq will be migrated to other CPUs,
> usually the first cpu on-line.
> 
> We can suppose the situation if a system has more than one non-balanced irq.
> At extreme case, these irqs will be migrated to the same CPU and will cause the 
> CPU run with high irq pressure, even make the system die.

It would take a hell of lot of interrupts (and a very badly designed
system) for that system to collapse under the interrupt load. Whatever
people tend to think, interrupts are a very rare event.

Any moderately ancient CPU can take several hundred of thousand
interrupts per second, and you still barely notice it (try any embedded
platform with a bunch of MMC controllers...).

Now, let's get to the actual question:

> So, I think maybe we need to change the non-balanced irq to a irq can be
> balanced to avoid the problem descried above.

But what makes you think that you can safely clear that flag? If it has
been excluding from balancing, that's surely for a good reason, and the
device driver that requested this probably doesn't expect the interrupt
affinity to change, other than by the effect of CPU hotplug itself.

So if you're seeing a problem with an interrupt not being balanced,
please first investigate *why* the driver asked for it the first place.

But to the best of my understanding, this patch doesn't solve anything.

Thanks,

	N,
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-01  8:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-01  3:28 [RFC PATCH] genirq: Change the non-balanced irq to balance irq when the cpu of the irq bounded off line MaJun
2016-04-01  3:28 ` MaJun
2016-04-01  8:30 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2016-04-01  8:30   ` Marc Zyngier

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=56FE31A8.1020502@arm.com \
    --to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.