lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them
    On Fri, 6 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote:
    > > From: Thomas Gleixner
    > > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 6:00 PM
    > >
    > > On Fri, 6 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote:
    > > > x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them
    > > >
    > > > it doesn't make sense to mask/unmask a disabled irq when migrating it
    > > > from offlined cpu to another, because it's not expected to handle any
    > > > instance of it. Current mask/set_affinity/unmask steps may trigger
    > > > unexpected instance on disabled irq which then simply bug on when
    > > > there is no handler for it. One failing example is observed in Xen.
    > > > Xen pvops
    > >
    > > So there is no handler, why the heck is there an irq action?
    > >
    > > if (!irq_has_action(irq) ....
    > > continue;
    > >
    > > Should have caught an uninitialized interrupt. If Xen abuses interrupts that way,
    > > then it rightfully explodes. And we do not fix it by magic somewhere else.
    >
    > sorry that my bad description here. there does be a dummy handler registered
    > on such irqs which simply throws out a BUG_ON when hit. I should just say such
    > injection is not expected instead of no handler. :-)

    I don't think this patch is necessary anymore after the event channel
    handling cleanup patches I have just sent to the list.
    Could you please try the following two patches:

    http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130468120032172&w=2
    http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130468178200468&w=2

    and let me know if you still need this patch?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-06 16:29    [W:0.020 / U:1.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site