* [PATCH] bug in irq_affinity_write_proc
@ 2004-07-21 8:52 Kenji Kaneshige
2004-07-23 20:11 ` David Mosberger
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kenji Kaneshige @ 2004-07-21 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
Hi,
Writing a value with 'R' or 'r' character to /proc/irq/<IRQ#>/smp_affinity
causes a kernel Oops. The following patch fixes this issue.
Signed-off-by: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
linux-2.6.8-rc2-kanesige/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c | 8 ++++++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -puN arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c~fix_irq_affinity_write_proc arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c
--- linux-2.6.8-rc2/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c~fix_irq_affinity_write_proc 2004-07-21 15:32:10.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-2.6.8-rc2-kanesige/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c 2004-07-21 17:14:18.865086983 +0900
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ irq_desc_t _irq_desc[NR_IRQS] __cachelin
* This is updated when the user sets irq affinity via /proc
*/
cpumask_t __cacheline_aligned pending_irq_cpumask[NR_IRQS];
+static int pending_irq_redir[NR_IRQS];
#ifdef CONFIG_IA64_GENERIC
irq_desc_t * __ia64_irq_desc (unsigned int irq)
@@ -973,6 +974,7 @@ static int irq_affinity_write_proc (stru
int prelen;
irq_desc_t *desc = irq_descp(irq);
unsigned long flags;
+ int redir = 0;
if (!desc->handler->set_affinity)
return -EIO;
@@ -995,7 +997,7 @@ static int irq_affinity_write_proc (stru
prelen = 0;
if (tolower(*rbuf) = 'r') {
prelen = strspn(rbuf, "Rr ");
- irq |= IA64_IRQ_REDIRECTED;
+ redir++;
}
err = cpumask_parse(buffer+prelen, count-prelen, new_value);
@@ -1012,6 +1014,7 @@ static int irq_affinity_write_proc (stru
return -EINVAL;
spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
+ pending_irq_redir[irq] = redir;
pending_irq_cpumask[irq] = new_value;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
@@ -1023,11 +1026,12 @@ void move_irq(int irq)
/* note - we hold desc->lock */
cpumask_t tmp;
irq_desc_t *desc = irq_descp(irq);
+ int irq_with_redir = pending_irq_redir[irq] ? (irq | IA64_IRQ_REDIRECTED) : irq;
if (!cpus_empty(pending_irq_cpumask[irq])) {
cpus_and(tmp, pending_irq_cpumask[irq], cpu_online_map);
if (unlikely(!cpus_empty(tmp))) {
- desc->handler->set_affinity(irq, pending_irq_cpumask[irq]);
+ desc->handler->set_affinity(irq_with_redir, pending_irq_cpumask[irq]);
}
cpus_clear(pending_irq_cpumask[irq]);
}
_
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] bug in irq_affinity_write_proc
2004-07-21 8:52 [PATCH] bug in irq_affinity_write_proc Kenji Kaneshige
@ 2004-07-23 20:11 ` David Mosberger
2004-07-26 3:25 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2004-07-26 23:39 ` David Mosberger
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Mosberger @ 2004-07-23 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:52:14 +0900, Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com> said:
Kenji> Hi, Writing a value with 'R' or 'r' character to
Kenji> /proc/irq/<IRQ#>/smp_affinity causes a kernel Oops. The
Kenji> following patch fixes this issue.
Kenji> Signed-off-by: Kenji Kaneshige
Kenji> <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
How about using a bitset for pending_irq_redir? Or at least a
byte-array instead of a word-array.
--david
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] bug in irq_affinity_write_proc
2004-07-21 8:52 [PATCH] bug in irq_affinity_write_proc Kenji Kaneshige
2004-07-23 20:11 ` David Mosberger
@ 2004-07-26 3:25 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2004-07-26 23:39 ` David Mosberger
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kenji Kaneshige @ 2004-07-26 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
> How about using a bitset for pending_irq_redir? Or at least a
> byte-array instead of a word-array.
I modified my patch to use bitset for pending_irq_redir.
Please take a look.
Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige
Writing 'R' or 'r' character to /proc/irq/<IRQ#>/smp_affinity
cause a kernel Oops. The following patch fixes this issue.
Signed-off-by: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
linux-2.6.8-rc2-kanesige/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c | 11 +++++++++--
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -puN arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c~fix_irq_affinity_write_proc arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c
--- linux-2.6.8-rc2/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c~fix_irq_affinity_write_proc 2004-07-26 10:43:03.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-2.6.8-rc2-kanesige/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c 2004-07-26 10:54:00.000000000 +0900
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ irq_desc_t _irq_desc[NR_IRQS] __cachelin
* This is updated when the user sets irq affinity via /proc
*/
cpumask_t __cacheline_aligned pending_irq_cpumask[NR_IRQS];
+static unsigned long pending_irq_redir[BITS_TO_LONGS(NR_IRQS)];
#ifdef CONFIG_IA64_GENERIC
irq_desc_t * __ia64_irq_desc (unsigned int irq)
@@ -973,6 +974,7 @@ static int irq_affinity_write_proc (stru
int prelen;
irq_desc_t *desc = irq_descp(irq);
unsigned long flags;
+ int redir = 0;
if (!desc->handler->set_affinity)
return -EIO;
@@ -995,7 +997,7 @@ static int irq_affinity_write_proc (stru
prelen = 0;
if (tolower(*rbuf) = 'r') {
prelen = strspn(rbuf, "Rr ");
- irq |= IA64_IRQ_REDIRECTED;
+ redir++;
}
err = cpumask_parse(buffer+prelen, count-prelen, new_value);
@@ -1013,6 +1015,10 @@ static int irq_affinity_write_proc (stru
spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
pending_irq_cpumask[irq] = new_value;
+ if (redir)
+ set_bit(irq, pending_irq_redir);
+ else
+ clear_bit(irq, pending_irq_redir);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
return full_count;
@@ -1023,11 +1029,12 @@ void move_irq(int irq)
/* note - we hold desc->lock */
cpumask_t tmp;
irq_desc_t *desc = irq_descp(irq);
+ int irq_with_redir = test_bit(irq, pending_irq_redir) ? (irq | IA64_IRQ_REDIRECTED) : irq;
if (!cpus_empty(pending_irq_cpumask[irq])) {
cpus_and(tmp, pending_irq_cpumask[irq], cpu_online_map);
if (unlikely(!cpus_empty(tmp))) {
- desc->handler->set_affinity(irq, pending_irq_cpumask[irq]);
+ desc->handler->set_affinity(irq_with_redir, pending_irq_cpumask[irq]);
}
cpus_clear(pending_irq_cpumask[irq]);
}
_
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] bug in irq_affinity_write_proc
2004-07-21 8:52 [PATCH] bug in irq_affinity_write_proc Kenji Kaneshige
2004-07-23 20:11 ` David Mosberger
2004-07-26 3:25 ` Kenji Kaneshige
@ 2004-07-26 23:39 ` David Mosberger
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Mosberger @ 2004-07-26 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:25:44 +0900, Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com> said:
>> How about using a bitset for pending_irq_redir? Or at least a
>> byte-array instead of a word-array.
Kenji> I modified my patch to use bitset for pending_irq_redir.
Kenji> Please take a look.
OK, I checked that in now, with an additional small change which I
think improves readability a bit (see below).
Thanks,
--david
--
diff -Nru a/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c
--- a/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c 2004-07-26 16:37:58 -07:00
+++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/irq.c 2004-07-26 16:37:58 -07:00
@@ -1029,12 +1029,13 @@
/* note - we hold desc->lock */
cpumask_t tmp;
irq_desc_t *desc = irq_descp(irq);
- int irq_with_redir = test_bit(irq, pending_irq_redir) ? (irq | IA64_IRQ_REDIRECTED) : irq;
+ int redir = test_bit(irq, pending_irq_redir);
if (!cpus_empty(pending_irq_cpumask[irq])) {
cpus_and(tmp, pending_irq_cpumask[irq], cpu_online_map);
if (unlikely(!cpus_empty(tmp))) {
- desc->handler->set_affinity(irq_with_redir, pending_irq_cpumask[irq]);
+ desc->handler->set_affinity(irq | (redir ? IA64_IRQ_REDIRECTED : 0),
+ pending_irq_cpumask[irq]);
}
cpus_clear(pending_irq_cpumask[irq]);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-07-26 23:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-07-21 8:52 [PATCH] bug in irq_affinity_write_proc Kenji Kaneshige
2004-07-23 20:11 ` David Mosberger
2004-07-26 3:25 ` Kenji Kaneshige
2004-07-26 23:39 ` David Mosberger
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox