On 01/01/2014 09:41 PM, Chen, Gong wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 04:22:09PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> Okay, how about,
>> if (irq_has_action(irq) && !irqd_is_per_cpu(data) &&
>> ((!cpumask_empty(&affinity_new)) &&
>> !cpumask_subset(&affinity_new, &online_new)) ||
>> cpumask_empty(&affinity_new))
>> this_count++;
>>
> I think it is good but a little bit complicated. How about this:
>
> if (irq_has_action(irq) && !irqd_is_per_cpu(data) &&
> /* add some commments to emphysize the importance of turn */
> (cpumask_empty(&affinity_new) ||
> !cpumask_subset(&affinity_new, &online_new)))
Yeah :) I thought of that after I sent it. :)
>
>> I tried this with the following examples and AFAICT I get the correct result:
>>
>> 1) affinity mask = online mask = 0xf. CPU 3 (1000b) is down'd.
>>
>> this_count is not incremented.
>>
>> 2) affinity mask is a non-zero subset of the online mask (which IMO is
>> the "typical" case). For example, affinity_mask = 0x9, online mask = 0xf.
>> CPU
>> 3 is again down'd.
>>
>> this_count is not incremented.
>>
>> 3) affinity_mask = 0x1, online mask = 0x3. (this is your example). CPU
>> 1 is going down.
>>
>> this_count is incremented, as the resulting affinity mask will be 0.
>>
>> 4) affinity_mask = 0x0, online mask = 0x7. CPU 1 is going down.
>>
>> this_count is incremented, as the affinity mask is 0.
>>
> The 4th scenario is very tricky. If you try to set affinity from user space,
> it will return failure because before kernel tried to change the affinity it
> will verify it:
> int __ioapic_set_affinity(...)
> {
> ...
> if (!cpumask_intersects(mask, cpu_online_mask))
> return -EINVAL;
> ...
> }
>
> So from this point of view, affinity can't be 0. But your patch is very
> special because you change it by hand:
> cpu_clear(smp_processor_id(), affinity_new);
>
> so it is reasonable. It makes me thinking a little bit more. In fixup_irqs
> we have similar logic but we don't protect it. Maybe it is because currently
> the scenario 4 can't happen because we stop it in advance. But who knows
> if one day we use it in other situation we will hit this subtle issue
> probably.
>
> So, Prarit, I suggest you writing another patch to fix this potential issue
> for fixup_irqs. How would you think?
As you know Rui, I've been staring at that code wondering if it needs a fix.
I'd like to hear Gong Chen's thoughts about it too...
P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
