From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wli@holomorphy.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, manfred@colorfullife.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prevent sparc64 from invoking irq handlers on offline CPUs
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:21:38 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080903.022138.31681256.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080903004211.GD6748@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:42:11 -0700
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 05:16:30PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > So I'd like to hold off on this patch until this locking issue is
> > resolved.
>
> OK, it is your architecture. But in the meantime, sparc64 can take
> interrupts on CPUs whose cpu_online_map bits have been cleared.
Paul, here is how I resolved this in my tree.
First, I applied a patch that killed that 'call_lock' and replaced
the accesses with ipi_call_lock() and ipi_call_unlock().
Then I sed'd up your patch so that it applies properly after that
change.
I still think there will be a problem here on sparc64. I had the
online map clearing there happening first because the fixup_irqs()
thing doesn't drain interrupts. It just makes sure that "device"
interrupts no longer point at the cpu. So all new device interrupts
after fixup_irqs() will not go to the cpu.
Then we do the:
local_irq_enable();
mdelay(1);
local_irq_disable();
thing to process any interrupts which were sent while we were
retargetting the device IRQs.
I also intended this to drain the cross-call interrupts too, that's
why I cleared the cpu_online_map() bit before fixup_irqs() and
the above "enable/disable" sequence runs.
With your change in there now, IPIs won't get drained and the system
might get stuck as a result.
I wonder if it would work if we cleared the cpu_online_map right
before the "enable/disable" sequence, but after fixup_irqs()?
Paul, what do you think?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-03 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-31 17:33 [PATCH] prevent sparc64 from invoking irq handlers on offline CPUs Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-03 0:16 ` David Miller
2008-09-03 0:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-03 9:21 ` David Miller [this message]
2008-09-03 15:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-09 0:17 ` David Miller
2008-09-09 14:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-09-09 18:49 ` Manfred Spraul
2008-09-09 19:57 ` David Miller
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=20080903.022138.31681256.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.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