* Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Chris J Arges > <chris.j.ar...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > I included the full patch in reply to Ingo's email, and when > > running with that I no longer get the ack_APIC_irq WARNs. > > Ok. That means that the printk's themselves just change timing > enough, or change the compiler instruction scheduling so that it > hides the apic problem.
So another possibility would be that it's the third change causing this change in behavior: diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/vector.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/vector.c index 6cedd7914581..833a981c5420 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/vector.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/vector.c @@ -335,9 +340,11 @@ int apic_retrigger_irq(struct irq_data *data) void apic_ack_edge(struct irq_data *data) { + ack_APIC_irq(); + + /* Might generate IPIs, so do this after having ACKed the APIC: */ irq_complete_move(irqd_cfg(data)); irq_move_irq(data); - ack_APIC_irq(); } /* ... since with this we won't send IPIs in a semi-nested fashion with an unacked APIC, which is a good idea to do in general. It's also a weird enough hardware pattern that virtualization's APIC emulation might get it slightly wrong or slightly different. > Which very much indicates that these things are interconnected. > > For example, Ingo's printk patch does > > cfg->move_in_progress = > cpumask_intersects(cfg->old_domain, > cpu_online_mask); > + if (cfg->move_in_progress) > + pr_info("apic: vector %02x, > same-domain move in progress\n", cfg->vector); > cpumask_and(cfg->domain, cfg->domain, tmp_mask); > > and that means that now the setting of move_in_progress is > serialized with the cpumask_and() in a way that it wasn't before. Yeah, that's a possibility too. It all looks very fragile. Thanks, Ingo -- 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/