From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E728EDDDE0
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Mon,  1 Sep 2008 13:21:22 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prevent powerpc from invoking irq handlers on offline CPUs
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
In-Reply-To: <20080901020640.GM7015@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20080831173127.GA15296@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1220229284.13162.411.camel@pasglop>
	<20080901020640.GM7015@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:14:40 +1000
Message-Id: <1220238880.13010.4.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: tnt@246tNt.com, manfred@colorfullife.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 19:06 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:34:44AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 10:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Make powerpc refrain from clearing a given to-be-offlined CPU's bit in the
> > > cpu_online_mask until it has processed pending irqs.  This change
> > > prevents other CPUs from being blindsided by an apparently offline CPU
> > > nevertheless changing globally visible state.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Sounds reasonable... the only possible worry here is if somebody tries
> > an IPI ... The IPI code will and the target CPU mask with the online
> > map, so it may try to send to the to-be-offlined CPU and timeout, no ?
> 
> OK.  Do we need separate IPI and online masks?

Shouldn't we already have routed all interrupts to other CPUs anyway ?

IE. The affinity of all interrupts should have been updated. So the
only thing we're going to get here are possibly IPIs and decrementer, 
I don't see it being a big deal making sure we test we are online when
receiving it.

Ben.