From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@au1.ibm.com>
To: Daniel Henrique Barboza <danielhb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Question: handling early hotplug interrupts
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:55:00 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1504043700.2358.37.camel@au1.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e5975dfb-6609-a3b1-7ea7-b9e8fe31b669@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 17:43 -0300, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a scenario I've been facing when working in early device
> hotplugs in QEMU. When a device is added, a IRQ pulse is fired to warn
> the guest of the event, then the kernel fetches it by calling
> 'check_exception' and handles it. If the hotplug is done too early
> (before SLOF, for example), the pulse is ignored and the hotplug event
> is left unchecked in the events queue.
>
> One solution would be to pulse the hotplug queue interrupt after CAS,
> when we are sure that the hotplug queue is negotiated. However, this
> panics the kernel with sig 11 kernel access of bad area, which suggests
> that the kernel wasn't quite ready to handle it.
That's not right. This is a bug that needs fixing. The interrupt should
be masked anyway but still.
Tell us more about the crash (backtrace etc...) this definitely needs
fixing.
> In my experiments using upstream 4.13 I saw that there is a 'safe time'
> to pulse the queue, sometime after CAS and before mounting the root fs,
> but I wasn't able to pinpoint it. From QEMU perspective, the last hcall
> done (an h_set_mode) is still too early to pulse it and the kernel
> panics. Looking at the kernel source I saw that the IRQ handling is
> initiated quite early in the init process.
>
> So my question (ok, actually 2 questions):
>
> - Is my analysis correct? Is there an unsafe time to fire a IRQ pulse
> before CAS that can break the kernel or am I overlooking/doing something
> wrong?
> - is there a reliable way to know when can the kernel safely handle the
> hotplug interrupt?
So I don't think that's the right approach. Virtual interrutps are edge
sensitive and we will potentially lose them if they occur early. I
think what needs to happen is:
- Fix whatever's causing the above crash
and
- The hotplug code should check for pending events (check_exception ?)
at boot time to enqueue whatever's there. It needs to do that after
unmasking the interrupt and in a way that is protected from races with
said interrupt.
Cheers,
Ben.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-29 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-29 20:43 Question: handling early hotplug interrupts Daniel Henrique Barboza
2017-08-29 21:55 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2017-08-29 23:53 ` Daniel Henrique Barboza
2017-08-30 6:09 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-08-30 14:37 ` Nathan Fontenot
2017-08-31 9:53 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-08-30 5:59 ` Michael Ellerman
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=1504043700.2358.37.camel@au1.ibm.com \
--to=benh@au1.ibm.com \
--cc=danielhb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).