Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/fixup_irq: Clean the offlining CPU from the irq affinity mask

[Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>]

On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 23:00 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 09/26/2012 10:36 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 21:33 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> I have some fundamental questions here:
> >> 1. Why was the CPU never removed from the affinity masks in the original
> >> code? I find it hard to believe that it was just an oversight, because the
> >> whole point of fixup_irqs() is to affine the interrupts to other CPUs, IIUC.
> >> So, is that really a bug or is the existing code correct for some reason
> >> which I don't know of?
> > 
> > I am not aware of the history but my guess is that the affinity mask
> > which is coming from the user-space wants to be preserved. And
> > fixup_irqs() is fixing the underlying interrupt routing when the cpu
> > goes down
> 
> and the code that corresponds to that is:
> irq_force_complete_move(irq); is it?

No. irq_set_affinity()

> > with a hope that things will be corrected when the cpu comes
> > back online. But  as Liu noted, we are not correcting the underlying
> > routing when the cpu comes back online. I think we should fix that
> > rather than modifying the user-specified affinity.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, I didn't entirely get your suggestion. Are you saying that we should change
> data->affinity (by calling ->irq_set_affinity()) during offline but maintain a
> copy of the original affinity mask somewhere, so that we can try to match it
> when possible (ie., when CPU comes back online)?

Don't change the data->affinity in the fixup_irqs() and shortly after a
cpu is online, call irq_chip's irq_set_affinity() for those irq's who
affinity included this cpu (now that the cpu is back online,
irq_set_affinity() will setup the HW routing tables correctly).

This presumes that across the suspend/resume, cpu offline/online
operations, we don't want to break the irq affinity setup by the
user-level entity like irqbalance etc...

> > That happens only if the irq chip doesn't have the irq_set_affinity() setup.
> 
> That is my other point of concern : setting irq affinity can fail even if
> we have ->irq_set_affinity(). (If __ioapic_set_affinity() fails, for example).
> Why don't we complain in that case? I think we should... and if its serious
> enough, abort the hotplug operation or atleast indicate that offline failed..

yes if there is a failure then we are in trouble, as the cpu is already
disappeared from the online-masks etc. For platforms with
interrupt-remapping, interrupts can be migrated from the process context
and as such this all can be done much before.

And for legacy platforms we have done quite a few changes in the recent
past like using eoi_ioapic_irq() for level triggered interrupts etc,
that makes it as safe as it can be. Perhaps we can move most of the
fixup_irqs() code much ahead and the lost section of the current
fixup_irqs() (which check IRR bits and use the retrigger function to
trigger the interrupt on another cpu) can still be done late just like
now.

thanks,
suresh