From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"stable@kernel.org" <stable@kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64: prevent irq migration race in __cpu_disable path
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:17:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090206231709.GP10918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090206210550.GF2445@ldl.fc.hp.com>
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 02:05:50PM -0700, Alex Chiang wrote:
> * Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com>:
> > > This is wrong because fixup_irqs calls migrate_irqs, and in
> > > migrate_irqs, we use the cpu_online_map to:
> > >
> > > 1. look for interrupts on current CPU
> > > 2. if we find one, move it to the first available CPU in
> > > the cpu_online_map
> > >
> > > This means we can potentially migrate an interrupt off ourself
> > > back to... ourself. Uh oh.
> >
> > Should we make migrate_irqs smarter then ... does any caller really
> > expect that it would "migrate" the irq to the same cpu?
>
> The only thing migrate_irqs does is locate irqs that have their
> CPU affinity set to the current CPU, and if so, changes the
> affinity.
>
> We still have possible pending timer interrupts that we need to
> handle, so I'm not seeing how changing the migrate_irqs
> implementation (to avoid migrating to ourself) will handle that.
>
> On one hand, I think the only irq handler that can be called at
> this point is our timer_interrupt, which doesn't seem to be using
> any RCU APIs.
>
> On the other hand, if we really want to make sure that we're not
> calling interrupt handlers with our CPU marked as 'offline', then
> we need to fix ia64_process_pending_intr() so that we're not
> firing our timer_interrupt with a NULL pt_regs.
>
> Add in to the mix that x86 seems to have the same assumption that
> we do (that it's ok to call our timer interrupt handler even if
> we're already marked as 'offline').
>
> I'm leaning towards reverting Paul's previous commit entirely
> because
>
> - migrate_platform_irqs() doesn't cause any interrupt
> handlers to be fired by itself
>
> - it also uses cpu_online)map to find a new CPU to assign
> CPEI to
>
> Thoughts?
I would suggest at least a comment stating why it is safe to take the
interrupts on a CPU marked offline. As to the eventual solution, you
guys are the experts on your architecture.
Thanx, Paul
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-06 23:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-06 16:22 [PATCH] ia64: prevent irq migration race in __cpu_disable path Alex Chiang
2009-02-06 17:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-06 18:07 ` Alex Chiang
2009-02-06 18:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-02-06 18:43 ` Alex Chiang
2009-02-06 18:42 ` Luck, Tony
2009-02-06 21:05 ` Alex Chiang
2009-02-06 23:17 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
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=20090206231709.GP10918@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=achiang@hp.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.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