From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>
Cc: Shiyuan Hu <hushiyuan@huawei.com>,
Hewenliang <hewenliang4@huawei.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq/affinity: show managed irq affinity correctly
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 10:08:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877du355o1.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b55d8b8c-8afc-0046-44b6-514ad012936f@huawei.com>
Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com> writes:
> The "managed_irq" for isolcpus is supported after the commit
> 11ea68f553e2 ("genirq, sched/isolation: Isolate from handling managed
> interrupts"), but the interrupt affinity shown in proc directory is
> still the original affinity.
>
> So modify the interrupt affinity correctly for managed_irq.
I really have no idea what you are trying to achieve here.
1) Why are you moving the !chip !chip->irq_set_affinity check out of
irq_do_set_affinity() ?
Just that the whole computation happens for nothing and then returns
an error late.
2) Modifying irqdata->common->affinity is wrong to begin with. It's the
possible affinity mask. Your change causes the managed affinity mask
to become invalid in the worst case.
irq->affinity = 0x0C; // CPU 2 - 3
hkmask = 0x07; // CPU 0 - 2
Invocation #1:
online_mask = 0xFF; // CPU 0 - 7
cpumask_and(&tmp_mask, mask, hk_mask);
--> tmp_mask == 0x04 // CPU 2
irq->affinity = tmp_mask; // CPU 2
CPU 2 goes offline
migrate_one_irq()
affinity = irq->affinity; // CPU 2
online_mask = 0xFB; // CPU 0-1, 3-7
if (cpumask_any_and(affinity, cpu_online_mask) >= nr_cpu_ids) {
/*
* If the interrupt is managed, then shut it down and leave
* the affinity untouched.
*/
if (irqd_affinity_is_managed(d)) {
irqd_set_managed_shutdown(d);
irq_shutdown_and_deactivate(desc);
return false;
}
So the interrupt is shut down which is incorrect. The isolation
logic in irq_do_set_affinity() was clearly designed to prefer
housekeeping CPUs and not to remove them.
You are looking at the wrong file. /proc/irq/$IRQ/smp_affinity* is the
possible mask. If you want to know to which CPU an interrupt is affine
then look at /proc/irq/$IRQ/effective_affinity*
If effective_affinity* is not showing the correct value, then the irq
chip affinity setter is broken and needs to be fixed.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-13 8:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-11 6:17 Yunfeng Ye
2020-08-13 8:08 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2020-08-15 14:29 ` Marc Zyngier
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=877du355o1.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=hewenliang4@huawei.com \
--cc=hushiyuan@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yeyunfeng@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®