[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: irq: Initialize the per-CPU IRQs while preparing the CPU
Hi Stefano, On 15/06/2022 01:32, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 14 Jun 2022, Julien Grall wrote:From: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx> Commit 5047cd1d5dea "xen/common: Use enhanced ASSERT_ALLOC_CONTEXT in xmalloc()" extended the checks in _xmalloc() to catch any use of the helpers from context with interrupts disabled. Unfortunately, the rule is not followed when initializing the per-CPU IRQs: (XEN) Xen call trace: (XEN) [<002389f4>] _xmalloc+0xfc/0x314 (PC) (XEN) [<00000000>] 00000000 (LR) (XEN) [<0021a7c4>] init_one_irq_desc+0x48/0xd0 (XEN) [<002807a8>] irq.c#init_local_irq_data+0x48/0xa4 (XEN) [<00280834>] init_secondary_IRQ+0x10/0x2c (XEN) [<00288fa4>] start_secondary+0x194/0x274 (XEN) [<40010170>] 40010170 (XEN) (XEN) (XEN) **************************************** (XEN) Panic on CPU 2: (XEN) Assertion '!in_irq() && (local_irq_is_enabled() || num_online_cpus() <= 1)' failed at common/xmalloc_tlsf.c:601 (XEN) **************************************** This is happening because zalloc_cpumask_var() may allocate memory if NR_CPUS is > 2 * sizeof(unsigned long). Avoid the problem by allocate the per-CPU IRQs while preparing the CPU. This also has the benefit to remove a BUG_ON() in the secondary CPU code. Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx> --- xen/arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h | 1 - xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- xen/arch/arm/smpboot.c | 2 -- 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h index e45d57459899..245f49dcbac5 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h @@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ static inline bool is_lpi(unsigned int irq) bool is_assignable_irq(unsigned int irq);void init_IRQ(void);-void init_secondary_IRQ(void);int route_irq_to_guest(struct domain *d, unsigned int virq,unsigned int irq, const char *devname); diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c index b761d90c4063..56bdcb95335d 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ * GNU General Public License for more details. */+#include <xen/cpu.h>#include <xen/lib.h> #include <xen/spinlock.h> #include <xen/irq.h> @@ -100,7 +101,7 @@ static int __init init_irq_data(void) return 0; }-static int init_local_irq_data(void)+static int init_local_irq_data(unsigned int cpu) { int irq;@@ -108,7 +109,7 @@ static int init_local_irq_data(void) for ( irq = 0; irq < NR_LOCAL_IRQS; irq++ ){ - struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq); + struct irq_desc *desc = &per_cpu(local_irq_desc, cpu)[irq]; int rc = init_one_irq_desc(desc);if ( rc )@@ -131,6 +132,29 @@ static int init_local_irq_data(void) return 0; }+static int cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb, unsigned long action,+ void *hcpu) +{ + unsigned long cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;unsigned int cpu ? Hmmm... We seem to have a mix in the code base. I am OK to switch to unsigned int. The rest looks good Can this be converted to an ack or review tag? Cheers, -- Julien Grall
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |