All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] x86/irq: deal with old_cpu_mask for interrupts in movement in fixup_irqs()
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:47:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zmlgp9C2ryFtT65B@macbook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66fc06cc-f1f6-4f12-83d4-a3b9788bffba@suse.com>

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 02:45:09PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 10.06.2024 16:20, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > Given the current logic it's possible for ->arch.old_cpu_mask to get out of
> > sync: if a CPU set in old_cpu_mask is offlined and then onlined
> > again without old_cpu_mask having been updated the data in the mask will no
> > longer be accurate, as when brought back online the CPU will no longer have
> > old_vector configured to handle the old interrupt source.
> > 
> > If there's an interrupt movement in progress, and the to be offlined CPU (which
> > is the call context) is in the old_cpu_mask clear it and update the mask, so it
> > doesn't contain stale data.
> 
> This imo is too __cpu_disable()-centric. In the code you cover the
> smp_send_stop() case afaict, where it's all _other_ CPUs which are being
> offlined. As we're not meaning to bring CPUs online again in that case,
> dealing with the situation likely isn't needed. Yet the description should
> imo at least make clear that the case was considered.

What about adding the following paragraph:

Note that when the system is going down fixup_irqs() will be called by
smp_send_stop() from CPU 0 with a mask with only CPU 0 on it,
effectively asking to move all interrupts to the current caller (CPU
0) which is the only CPU online.  In that case we don't care to
migrate interrupts that are in the process of being moved, as it's
likely we won't be able to move all interrupts to CPU 0 due to vector
shortage anyway.

> 
> > @@ -2589,6 +2589,28 @@ void fixup_irqs(const cpumask_t *mask, bool verbose)
> >                                 affinity);
> >          }
> >  
> > +        if ( desc->arch.move_in_progress &&
> > +             !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &cpu_online_map) &&
> 
> This part of the condition is, afaict, what covers (excludes) the
> smp_send_stop() case. Might be nice to have a brief comment here, thus
> also clarifying ...

Would you be fine with:

        if ( desc->arch.move_in_progress &&
             /*
	      * Only attempt to migrate if the current CPU is going
	      * offline, otherwise the whole system is going down and
	      * leaving stale interrupts is fine.
	      */
             !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &cpu_online_map) &&
             cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, desc->arch.old_cpu_mask) )


> > +             cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, desc->arch.old_cpu_mask) )
> > +        {
> > +            /*
> > +             * This CPU is going offline, remove it from ->arch.old_cpu_mask
> > +             * and possibly release the old vector if the old mask becomes
> > +             * empty.
> > +             *
> > +             * Note cleaning ->arch.old_cpu_mask is required if the CPU is
> > +             * brought offline and then online again, as when re-onlined the
> > +             * per-cpu vector table will no longer have ->arch.old_vector
> > +             * setup, and hence ->arch.old_cpu_mask would be stale.
> > +             */
> > +            cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, desc->arch.old_cpu_mask);
> > +            if ( cpumask_empty(desc->arch.old_cpu_mask) )
> > +            {
> > +                desc->arch.move_in_progress = 0;
> > +                release_old_vec(desc);
> > +            }
> 
> ... that none of this is really wanted or necessary in that other case.
> Assuming my understanding above is correct, the code change itself is
> once again

It is.  For the smp_send_stop() case we don't care much about leaving
stale data around, as the system is going down.  It's also likely
impossible to move all interrupts to CPU0 due to vector shortage, so
some interrupts will be left assigned to different CPUs.

> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> yet here I'm uncertain whether to offer on-commit editing, as it's not
> really clear to me whether there's a dependencies on patch 4.

No, in principle it should be fine to skip patch 4, but I would like
to do another round of testing before confirming.

Thanks, Roger.


  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-12  8:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-06-10 14:20 [PATCH v2 0/7] x86/irq: fixes for CPU hot{,un}plug Roger Pau Monne
2024-06-10 14:20 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] x86/smp: do not use shorthand IPI destinations in CPU hot{,un}plug contexts Roger Pau Monne
2024-06-11  7:42   ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12  8:09     ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-12  8:56       ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12 10:07         ` Oleksii K.
2024-06-10 14:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] x86/irq: describe how the interrupt CPU movement works Roger Pau Monne
2024-06-11  7:44   ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12 10:08     ` Oleksii K.
2024-06-10 14:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] x86/irq: limit interrupt movement done by fixup_irqs() Roger Pau Monne
2024-06-11  9:59   ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12  8:10     ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-12 10:13     ` Oleksii K.
2024-06-10 14:20 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] x86/irq: restrict CPU movement in set_desc_affinity() Roger Pau Monne
2024-06-11 10:20   ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12  8:31     ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-10 14:20 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] x86/irq: deal with old_cpu_mask for interrupts in movement in fixup_irqs() Roger Pau Monne
2024-06-11 12:45   ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12  8:47     ` Roger Pau Monné [this message]
2024-06-12  9:04       ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12 10:41         ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-11 13:47   ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12  8:36     ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-10 14:20 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] x86/irq: handle moving interrupts in _assign_irq_vector() Roger Pau Monne
2024-06-11 13:18   ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12 10:39     ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-12 13:42       ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12 15:36         ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-13  8:38           ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-13 11:31             ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-13 11:36               ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-13 12:55                 ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-13 13:07                   ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-10 14:20 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] x86/irq: forward pending interrupts to new destination in fixup_irqs() Roger Pau Monne
2024-06-11 13:50   ` Jan Beulich
2024-06-12 11:23     ` Roger Pau Monné
2024-06-12 13:47       ` Jan Beulich

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=Zmlgp9C2ryFtT65B@macbook \
    --to=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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.