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.
next prev parent 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