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. :-)

So can please someone point me to that particular incarnation of
nonsense and provide a reasonable explanation for this abuse?

What is the point of an interrupt, which is permanently disabled, has
a handler with a BUG() inside and an irqaction assigned ?

What's the purpose of this? Why is the irqaction there in the first
place? To be called by some other weird means than by the irq
handling code?

> > The only conditional which is interesting is the unmask path and that's a simple
> > optimization and not a correctness problem.
> >
>
> So what's your suggestion based on my updated information? Is there any
> interface I may take to differentiate above exception with normal case? Basically
> in Xen usage we want such irqs permanently disabled at the chip level. Or
> could we only do mask/unmask for irqs which are unmasked atm if as you said
> it's just an optimization step? :-)

No we can make the unmask conditional on !irqd_irq_disabled() because
that's not violating any of the semantics. The interrupt would be
masked anyway when it arrives and the handler code sees that it is
lazy disabled. I mean real handler code, not the Xen abomination.

The only valid reason why I'd apply that patch is that it avoids a
potential extra interrupt, but not to prevent screwed up handlers from
exploding.

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-06 15:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans