mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
Cc: <julien.thierry@arm.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/gic-v3-its: fix ITS queue timeout
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 10:13:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <86a7s89t13.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1528252824-15144-1-git-send-email-yangyingliang@huawei.com>

On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 03:40:24 +0100,
Yang Yingliang wrote:

[I'm travelling, so please do not expect any quick answer...]

> 
> When the kernel booted with maxcpus=x, 'x' is smaller
> than actual cpu numbers, the TAs of offline cpus won't

TA? Target Address? Target Affinity? Timing Advance? Terrible Acronym?

> be set to its->collection.
> 
> If LPI is bind to offline cpu, sync cmd will use zero TA,
> it leads to ITS queue timeout.  Fix this by choosing a
> online cpu, if there is no online cpu in cpu_mask.

So instead of fixing the emission of a sync command on a non-mapped
collection, you hack set_affinity? It doesn't feel like the right
thing to do.

It is also worth noticing that mapping an LPI to a collection that is
not mapped yet is perfectly legal.

> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> index 5416f2b..d8b9539 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> @@ -2309,7 +2309,9 @@ static int its_irq_domain_activate(struct irq_domain *domain,
>  		cpu_mask = cpumask_of_node(its_dev->its->numa_node);
>  
>  	/* Bind the LPI to the first possible CPU */
> -	cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_mask);
> +	cpu = cpumask_first_and(cpu_mask, cpu_online_mask);
> +	if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> +		cpu = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);

Now you're completely ignoring cpu_mask which constraints the NUMA
affinity. On some systems, this ends up with a deadlock (Cavium TX1,
if I remember well).

Wouldn't it be better to just return that the affinity setting request
is impossible to satisfy? And more to the point, how comes we end-up
in such a case?

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-06  9:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-06  2:40 Yang Yingliang
2018-06-06  9:13 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2018-06-07 12:25   ` Hanjun Guo
2018-06-10 10:40     ` Marc Zyngier
2018-06-11  9:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2018-06-11 11:23   ` Yang Yingliang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=86a7s89t13.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=julien.thierry@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yangyingliang@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome