[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/vector: Allow to free vector for managed IRQ
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 12:54:12AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Peter Xu <> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 03:24:08PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Peter Xu <> writes:
> >> What is this backtrace for? It's completly useless as it merily shows
> >> that the warning triggers. Also even if it'd be useful then it wants to
> >> be trimmed properly.
> >
> > I thought it was a good habit to keep the facts of issues. Backtrace
> > is one of them so I kept them. It could, for example, help people who
> > spot the same issue in an old/downstream kernel so when they google or
> > grepping git-log they know the exact issue has been solved by some
> > commit, even without much knowledge on the internals (because they can
> > exactly compare the whole dmesg error).
> This is not really good habit. Changelogs should contain factual
> information which is relevant to understand the problem. Backtraces are
> useful when the callchain leading to a bug/warn/oops _is_ relevant for
> understanding the issue. For things like this where the backtrace is
> completly out of context it's more of an distraction than of value.
> Aside of that your 'spot the same issue' argument is wrong in this
> context as this does not affect anything old/downstream. The feature was
> merged during the 5.6 merge window. So it has not reached anything
> downstream which needs backports. If distro people pick out such a
> feature and backport it to their frankenkernels before the final release
> then I really dont care.
> One way to preserve the backtrace for google's sake is to write a cover
> letter and stick the back trace there if it is not useful in the
> changelog.
> Also having 40+ lines of untrimmed backtrace is just a horrible
> distraction. The timestamps are completely useless and depending on the
> type of problem most of the other gunk which is emitted by a
> bug/warn/oops backtrace is useless as well.
> Why would you be interested in the register values for this problem or
> the code or the interrupt flags tracer state? That thing triggered a
> warning and nothing in the backtrace gives any clue about why that
> happened, IOW it's pure distraction.
> If the call chain is relevant to explain the problem, then a trimmed
> down version is really sufficient. Here is an example:
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000078
> RIP: 0010:apic_ack_edge+0x1e/0x40
> Call Trace:
> handle_edge_irq+0x7d/0x1e0
> generic_handle_irq+0x27/0x30
> aer_inject_write+0x53a/0x720
> This helps, because it illustrates exactly how this BUG was triggered
> and it's reduced to exactly the 6 lines because everything else in the
> original 50+ lines is useless.

Fair enough.

> > However I think I still miss one thing in the puzzle (although it
> > turns out that we've agreed on removing the warning already, but just
> > in case I missed something important) - do you mean that offlining all
> > the non-isolated CPUs in the mask won't trigger this already? Because
> > I also saw some similar comment somewhere else...
> >
> > Here's my understanding - when offlining, we'll disable the CPU and
> > reach:
> >
> > - irq_migrate_all_off_this_cpu
> > - migrate_one_irq
> > - irq_do_set_affinity
> > - calculate HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ and so on...
> >
> > Then we can still trigger this irq move event even before we bring
> > another housekeeping cpu online, right? Or could you guide me on what
> > I have missed?
> The migration when offlining the CPU to which an interrupt is affine
> does not trigger this because that uses a different mechanism.
> It clears the vector on the outgoing CPU brute force simply because this
> CPU can't handle any interrupts anymore. There is some logic to catch
> the device interrupt racing against this, but while careful it's not
> perfect. There is a theoretical hole there which probably could be
> triggered by carefully orchestrating things, but we can't do anything
> about it except disabling CPU unplug :)

Ah I haven't thought about the "theoretical hole" and that far... I
think I was only focusing on whether set_affinity() would happen, but
I ignored the fact that x86 __send_cleanup_vector() treated offlining
CPU in the special way to avoid sending IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR at
all. And that part makes perfect sense since we can't do much with an
offlined core.

> So the only two ways to trigger this are the ones I described in the
> changelog.
> Hope that helps.


Thanks for writting this up, Thomas!

Peter Xu

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-15 02:56    [W:0.110 / U:3.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site