From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Raj\, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc: "Raj\, Ashok" <ashok.raj@linux.intel.com>,
Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, "Ghorai\,
Sukumar" <sukumar.ghorai@intel.com>, "Amara\,
Madhusudanarao" <madhusudanarao.amara@intel.com>, "Nandamuri\,
Srikanth" <srikanth.nandamuri@intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Subject: Re: MSI interrupt for xhci still lost on 5.6-rc6 after cpu hotplug
Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 23:47:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875zdarr4h.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200505201616.GA15481@otc-nc-03>
Ashok,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@intel.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:36:04PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> The way it works is:
>>
>> 1) New vector on different CPU is allocated
>>
>> 2) New vector is installed
>>
>> 3) When the first interrupt on the new CPU arrives then the cleanup
>> IPI is sent to the previous CPU which tears down the old vector
>>
>> So if the interrupt is sent to the original CPU just before #2 then this
>> will be correctly handled on that CPU after the set affinity code
>> reenables interrupts.
>
> I'll have this test tried out.. but in msi_set_affinity() the check below
> for lapic_vector_set_in_irr(cfg->vector), this is the new vector correct?
> don't we want to check for old_cfg.vector instead?
>
> msi_set_affinit ()
> {
> ....
> unlock_vector_lock();
>
> /*
> * Check whether the transition raced with a device interrupt and
> * is pending in the local APICs IRR. It is safe to do this outside
> * of vector lock as the irq_desc::lock of this interrupt is still
> * held and interrupts are disabled: The check is not accessing the
> * underlying vector store. It's just checking the local APIC's
> * IRR.
> */
> if (lapic_vector_set_in_irr(cfg->vector))
> irq_data_get_irq_chip(irqd)->irq_retrigger(irqd);
No. This catches the transitional interrupt to the new vector on the
original CPU, i.e. the one which is running that code.
Again the steps are:
1) Allocate new vector on new CPU
2) Set new vector on original CPU
3) Set new vector on new CPU
So we have 3 points where an interrupt can fire:
A) Before #2
B) After #2 and before #3
C) After #3
#A is hitting the old vector which is still valid on the old CPU and
will be handled once interrupts are enabled with the correct irq
descriptor - Normal operation (same as with maskable MSI)
#B This must be checked in the IRR because the there is no valid vector
on the old CPU.
#C is handled on the new vector on the new CPU
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-05 21:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-18 19:25 MSI interrupt for xhci still lost on 5.6-rc6 after cpu hotplug Mathias Nyman
2020-03-19 20:24 ` Evan Green
2020-03-20 8:07 ` Mathias Nyman
2020-03-20 9:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-23 9:42 ` Mathias Nyman
2020-03-23 14:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-23 20:32 ` Mathias Nyman
2020-03-24 0:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-24 16:17 ` Evan Green
2020-03-24 19:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-01 18:43 ` Raj, Ashok
2020-05-05 19:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-05 20:16 ` Raj, Ashok
2020-05-05 21:47 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2020-05-07 12:18 ` Raj, Ashok
2020-05-07 12:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-07 17:57 ` Raj, Ashok
2020-05-07 19:41 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-03-25 17:12 ` Mathias Nyman
[not found] <20200508005528.GB61703@otc-nc-03>
2020-05-08 11:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-08 16:09 ` Raj, Ashok
2020-05-08 16:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-05-11 19:03 ` Raj, Ashok
2020-05-11 20:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=875zdarr4h.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=evgreen@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=madhusudanarao.amara@intel.com \
--cc=mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com \
--cc=srikanth.nandamuri@intel.com \
--cc=sukumar.ghorai@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).