From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Correct behaviour of irq affinity?
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:36:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49C9445C.7050103@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200903242322.24943.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2009 17:51:43 Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>> The effect of setting desc->affinity (ie. from userspace via sysfs) has varied
>>> over time. In 2.6.27, the 32-bit code anded the value with cpu_online_map,
>>> and both 32 and 64-bit did that anding whenever a cpu was unplugged.
>>>
>>> 2.6.29 consolidated this into one routine (and fixed hotplug) but introduced
>>> another variation: anding the affinity with cfg->domain. Is this right, or
>>> should we just set it to what the user said? Or as now, indicate that we're
>>> restricting it.
>>>
>>> If we should change it, here's what the patch looks like against x86 tip
>>> (cpu_mask_to_apicid_and already takes cpu_online_mask into account):
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>>> index 86827d8..30906cd 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>>> @@ -592,10 +592,10 @@ set_desc_affinity(struct irq_desc *desc, const struct cpumask *mask)
>>> if (assign_irq_vector(irq, cfg, mask))
>>> return BAD_APICID;
>>>
>>> - cpumask_and(desc->affinity, cfg->domain, mask);
>>> + cpumask_copy(desc->affinity, mask);
>>> set_extra_move_desc(desc, mask);
>>>
>>> - return apic->cpu_mask_to_apicid_and(desc->affinity, cpu_online_mask);
>>> + return apic->cpu_mask_to_apicid_and(desc->affinity, cfg->domain);
>>> }
>>>
>>> static void
>>>
>> cfg->domain for logical flat: will be ALL_CPUS
>> for phys flat (aka bigsmp on 32bit) will be one cpu set mask.
>>
>> so desc->affinity: for logical will be not changed, but
>> set_desc_affinity() return will be changed. ( not add with
>> cpu_online_mask anymore)
>
> No, internally cpu_mask_to_apicid_and() does and with cpu_online_mask
> already, eg in include/asm/bigsmp/apic.h:
>
> static inline unsigned int cpu_mask_to_apicid_and(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
> const struct cpumask *andmask)
> {
> int cpu;
>
> /*
> * We're using fixed IRQ delivery, can only return one phys APIC ID.
> * May as well be the first.
> */
> for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpumask, andmask)
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask))
> break;
> if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
> return cpu_to_logical_apicid(cpu);
>
> return BAD_APICID;
> }
>
>> when mask is 0x0f
>> for phys flat, desc->affinity will be changed to 0x0f from
>> 0x01/0x02/0x04/08, return set_desc_affinity is not changed.
>> so /proc/irq/xx/smp_affinity will be changed. and it does reflect that
>> actually affinity.
>>
>> so this patch looks not right.
>
> Only change should be that smp_affinity will reflect actual affinity, not
> affinity user set.
ok.
how about
static unsigned int flat_cpu_mask_to_apicid_and(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
const struct cpumask *andmask)
{
unsigned long mask1 = cpumask_bits(cpumask)[0] & APIC_ALL_CPUS;
unsigned long mask2 = cpumask_bits(andmask)[0] & APIC_ALL_CPUS;
return mask1 & mask2;
}
change it use
default_cpu_mask_to_apicid_and ?
YH
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-24 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-24 5:49 [RFC] Correct behaviour of irq affinity? Rusty Russell
2009-03-24 7:21 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 12:52 ` Rusty Russell
2009-03-24 20:36 ` Yinghai Lu [this message]
2009-03-24 12:39 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-03-24 19:49 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 20:23 ` [PATCH] x86: fix set_extra_move_desc calling Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 21:15 ` [tip:x86/apic] " Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 21:15 ` [PATCH 1/3] " Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 21:16 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86: use default_cpu_mask_to_apicid for 64bit Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 21:30 ` [tip:x86/apic] " Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 21:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-24 21:42 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86: Correct behaviour of irq affinity -v2 Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 21:17 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86: Correct behaviour of irq affinity Yinghai Lu
2009-03-24 21:30 ` [tip:x86/apic] " Rusty Russell
2009-03-25 17:51 ` Rusty Russell
2009-03-25 0:33 ` [RFC] Correct behaviour of irq affinity? Rusty Russell
2009-03-25 0:59 ` Rusty Russell
2009-03-25 1:03 ` Yinghai Lu
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=49C9445C.7050103@kernel.org \
--to=yinghai@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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