[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] x86/irq: restrict CPU movement in set_desc_affinity()


  • To: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:20:33 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:20:43 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 10.06.2024 16:20, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> If external interrupts are using logical mode it's possible to have an overlap
> between the current ->arch.cpu_mask and the provided mask (or TARGET_CPUS).  
> If
> that's the case avoid assigning a new vector and just move the interrupt to a
> member of ->arch.cpu_mask that overlaps with the provided mask and is online.

What I'm kind of missing here is an explanation of why what _assign_irq_vector()
does to avoid unnecessary migration (very first conditional there) isn't
sufficient.

> --- a/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/irq.c
> @@ -837,19 +837,38 @@ void cf_check irq_complete_move(struct irq_desc *desc)
>  
>  unsigned int set_desc_affinity(struct irq_desc *desc, const cpumask_t *mask)
>  {
> -    int ret;
> -    unsigned long flags;
>      cpumask_t dest_mask;
>  
>      if ( mask && !cpumask_intersects(mask, &cpu_online_map) )
>          return BAD_APICID;
>  
> -    spin_lock_irqsave(&vector_lock, flags);
> -    ret = _assign_irq_vector(desc, mask ?: TARGET_CPUS);
> -    spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vector_lock, flags);
> +    /*
> +     * mask input set can contain CPUs that are not online.  To decide 
> whether
> +     * the interrupt needs to be migrated restrict the input mask to the CPUs
> +     * that are online.
> +     */
> +    if ( mask )
> +        cpumask_and(&dest_mask, mask, &cpu_online_map);
> +    else
> +        cpumask_copy(&dest_mask, TARGET_CPUS);

Why once &cpu_online_map and once TARGET_CPUS?

> -    if ( ret < 0 )
> -        return BAD_APICID;
> +    /*
> +     * Only move the interrupt if there are no CPUs left in ->arch.cpu_mask
> +     * that can handle it, otherwise just shuffle it around ->arch.cpu_mask
> +     * to an available destination.
> +     */

"an available destination" (singular) gives the impression that it's only
ever going to be a single CPU. Yet cpu_mask_to_apicid_flat() and
cpu_mask_to_apicid_x2apic_cluster() can produce sets of multiple CPUs.
Therefore maybe "an available destination / the (sub)set of available
destinations"? Or as that's getting longish "(an) available destination(s)"?

> +    if ( !cpumask_intersects(desc->arch.cpu_mask, &dest_mask) )
> +    {
> +        int ret;
> +        unsigned long flags;
> +
> +        spin_lock_irqsave(&vector_lock, flags);
> +        ret = _assign_irq_vector(desc, mask ?: TARGET_CPUS);

Why not pass dest_mask here, as you now calculate that up front? The
function will skip offline CPUs anyway.

> @@ -862,6 +881,7 @@ unsigned int set_desc_affinity(struct irq_desc *desc, 
> const cpumask_t *mask)
>          cpumask_copy(&dest_mask, desc->arch.cpu_mask);
>      }
>      cpumask_and(&dest_mask, &dest_mask, &cpu_online_map);
> +    ASSERT(!cpumask_empty(&dest_mask));
>  
>      return cpu_mask_to_apicid(&dest_mask);

I wonder whether the assertion wouldn't better live in cpu_mask_to_apicid()
itself (the macro, not the backing functions).

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.