[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, 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. :-) I don't think this patch is necessary anymore after the event channel handling cleanup patches I have just sent to the list. Could you please try the following two patches: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130468120032172&w=2 http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130468178200468&w=2 and let me know if you still need this patch? _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |