From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CF80217F31; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 09:25:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.190 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755854751; cv=none; b=I1rpmzwEeyy2yMVbAeWIo72sdlSKCH92IK4QFCQkIqDTvYCfacH5gC4AGRbrzrrbjXzaXpRkHrVfx7JXa3ymFsznGY6ZUPdsGI2/nqxmpoT8LqH3HJXc+LWIWLJhiQIz/rePGtOXDsAuc/PgVz3Czf8T4egxTeceHk5mkKfhf9A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755854751; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Sskxxpf7pAkfsCjmaSxzRMPr+cHajhONtFolJ2RddB8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=m8DaEUD3P5GSXu9Xh0mG8OGPC+xH2/eFl2NSaGDBu9kx67d0ZPSZZ5Rdg/QIknmSYNec8yTYBQ8/QRgDTNAYrPmxEpK/xceQ5Un0k4W1EsBhC+0FD9tYcEopG2iTjtvpRDxMWmnv7o28hb+m/cnFrfQ5AJNiZEUBKaVWiBmYlE8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.190 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.112]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4c7ZV54gqsz2VRPB; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:22:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500011.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.131]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3DA140297; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:25:45 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) by dggpemf500011.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:25:44 +0800 Message-ID: <9fa1c126-00f1-95db-93a0-cee52a70062e@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:25:56 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6.6 RESEND 2/2] x86/irq: Plug vector setup race To: Greg KH CC: , , , , , , , , References: <20250822033825.1096753-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <20250822033825.1096753-3-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <2025082243-urging-outdoors-aa35@gregkh> Content-Language: en-US From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: <2025082243-urging-outdoors-aa35@gregkh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.67) To dggpemf500011.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.131) On 2025/8/22 16:57, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 03:38:25AM +0000, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> From: Thomas Gleixner >> >> commit ce0b5eedcb753697d43f61dd2e27d68eb5d3150f upstream. >> [...] >> >> /* >> @@ -273,7 +308,9 @@ DEFINE_IDTENTRY_IRQ(common_interrupt) >> /* entry code tells RCU that we're not quiescent. Check it. */ >> RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "IRQ failed to wake up RCU"); >> >> - call_irq_handler(vector, regs); >> + if (unlikely(!call_irq_handler(vector, regs))) >> + apic_eoi(); >> + > > This chunk does not look correct. The original commit did not have > this, so why add it here? Where did it come from? > > The original patch said: > - if (unlikely(call_irq_handler(vector, regs))) > + if (unlikely(!call_irq_handler(vector, regs))) > > And was not an if statement. > > So did you forget to backport something else here? Why is this not > identical to what the original was? The if statement is introduced in commit 1b03d82ba15e ("x86/irq: Install posted MSI notification handler") which is a patch in patch set https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240423174114.526704-1-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com/, but it seems to be a performance optimization patch set, and this patch includes additional modifications. The context conflict is merely a simple refactoring, but the cost of the entire round of this patch set is too high. > > thanks, > > greg k-h