[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them
On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 14:24 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > From: Thomas Gleixner > > > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 6:00 PM > > > > > > On Fri, 6 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > > > x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them > > > > > > > > it doesn't make sense to mask/unmask a disabled irq when migrating it > > > > from offlined cpu to another, because it's not expected to handle any > > > > instance of it. Current mask/set_affinity/unmask steps may trigger > > > > unexpected instance on disabled irq which then simply bug on when > > > > there is no handler for it. One failing example is observed in Xen. > > > > Xen pvops > > > > > > So there is no handler, why the heck is there an irq action? > > > > > > if (!irq_has_action(irq) .... > > > continue; > > > > > > Should have caught an uninitialized interrupt. If Xen abuses interrupts > > > that way, > > > then it rightfully explodes. And we do not fix it by magic somewhere else. > > > > sorry that my bad description here. there does be a dummy handler registered > > on such irqs which simply throws out a BUG_ON when hit. I should just say > > such > > injection is not expected instead of no handler. :-) > > So can please someone point me to that particular incarnation of > nonsense and provide a reasonable explanation for this abuse? > > What is the point of an interrupt, which is permanently disabled, has > a handler with a BUG() inside and an irqaction assigned ? > > What's the purpose of this? Why is the irqaction there in the first > place? To be called by some other weird means than by the irq > handling code? The Xen PV spinlock code (arch/x86/xen/spinlock.c) allocates an IRQ (per-cpu lock_kicker_irq). I think it is there purely in order to have the associated underlying evtchn to use as the thing to poll (Xen has an evtchn poll hypercall, see xen_poll_irq()) on the slow path and kick on release. There is never any need to call a handler for that evtchn -- just notifying the evtchn is enough to wake the poller. The irq is setup using request_irq(). Is there a different API to register an IRQ without attaching a handler/action to it? (I can't think why such a thing would exist). I'm not really sure why these can't just be an evtchn without an associated IRQ since it doesn't really have any interrupt-like semantics. Perhaps just a general desire to keep event channels abstracted into the core Xen event subsystem with IRQs as the public facing API? Jeremy? Ian. > > > The only conditional which is interesting is the unmask path and that's a > > > simple > > > optimization and not a correctness problem. > > > > > > > So what's your suggestion based on my updated information? Is there any > > interface I may take to differentiate above exception with normal case? > > Basically > > in Xen usage we want such irqs permanently disabled at the chip level. Or > > could we only do mask/unmask for irqs which are unmasked atm if as you said > > it's just an optimization step? :-) > > No we can make the unmask conditional on !irqd_irq_disabled() because > that's not violating any of the semantics. The interrupt would be > masked anyway when it arrives and the handler code sees that it is > lazy disabled. I mean real handler code, not the Xen abomination. > > The only valid reason why I'd apply that patch is that it avoids a > potential extra interrupt, but not to prevent screwed up handlers from > exploding. > > Thanks, > > tglx _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |