From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <michael@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] powerpc: Ignore IPIs to offline CPUs
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
To: Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BCE6DDC.4020902@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <201004210154.o3L1sXaR001791@d01av04.pok.ibm.com>
	<12054.1271815478@neuling.org>  <4BCE6DDC.4020902@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-iRhnuhzSWUgFmGlvswSD"
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:35:29 +1000
Message-ID: <1271856929.3832.46.camel@concordia>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Reply-To: michael@ellerman.id.au
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>


--=-iRhnuhzSWUgFmGlvswSD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 22:15 -0500, Brian King wrote:
> On 04/20/2010 09:04 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > In message <201004210154.o3L1sXaR001791@d01av04.pok.ibm.com> you wrote:
> >>
> >> Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an
> >> offline CPU, rather than printing a warning to the logs,
> >> just ignore the IPI. This was seen while stress testing
> >> SMT enable/disable.
> >=20
> > This seems like a recipe for disaster.  Do we at least need a
> > WARN_ON_ONCE?
>=20
> Actually we are only seeing it once per offlining of a CPU,
> and only once in a while.
> =20
> My guess is that once the CPU is marked offline fewer IPIs
> get sent to it since its no longer in the online mask.

Hmm, right. Once it's offline it shouldn't get _any_ IPIs, AFAICS.

> Perhaps we should be disabling IPIs to offline CPUs instead?

You mean not sending them? We do:

void smp_xics_message_pass(int target, int msg)
{
        unsigned int i;

        if (target < NR_CPUS) {
                smp_xics_do_message(target, msg);
        } else {
                for_each_online_cpu(i) {
                        if (target =3D=3D MSG_ALL_BUT_SELF
                            && i =3D=3D smp_processor_id())
                                continue;
                        smp_xics_do_message(i, msg);
                }
        }
}     =20

So it does sound like the IPI was sent while the cpu was online (ie.
before pseries_cpu_disable(), but xics_migrate_irqs_away() has not
caused the IPI to be cancelled.

Problem is I don't think we can just ignore the IPI. The IPI might have
been sent for a smp_call_function() which is waiting for the result, in
which case if we ignore it the caller will block for ever.

I don't see how to fix it :/

cheers


--=-iRhnuhzSWUgFmGlvswSD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkvO/yEACgkQdSjSd0sB4dIf+ACcCm+mYfXI+kJNrXpPA/LE3drA
r0AAoI81RaLq4MKBxAO2nNRlvD4l89Rs
=/haO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-iRhnuhzSWUgFmGlvswSD--