Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 21:12:13 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
cc:     "Ghannam, Yazen" <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "keith.busch@intel.com" <keith.busch@intel.com>,
        "mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: "irq/matrix: Spread interrupts on allocation" breaks nouveau in
 mainline kernel
In-Reply-To: <1516908343.5161.4.camel@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801252109570.2203@nanos>
References: <1516744873.29151.3.camel@redhat.com>    <1516757219.29151.7.camel@redhat.com>    <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801241351080.1997@nanos>    <1516816150.4109.2.camel@redhat.com>    <DM5PR12MB19161E66F534B7050B8CCBF0F8E20@DM5PR12MB1916.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
  <1516823810.4109.26.camel@redhat.com>   <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801250945080.2020@nanos>  <1516904638.5161.1.camel@redhat.com>  <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801251945170.2203@nanos> <1516908343.5161.4.camel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Lyude Paul wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 19:46 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Lyude Paul wrote:
> > 
> > > I think you are right, apologies. Glad to know this isn't a regression in
> > > the
> > > IRQ handling code :). It looks like our nouveau problems are probably coming
> > > from the fact that we don't just leave IRQs setup through suspend/resume
> > > which
> > > as far as I can tell, is probably not the correct thing to do.
> > 
> > If you tear down the interrupt, then you have to make sure that it's
> > completely masked and disabled on the device side (including MSI).
> Does this only need to be done if we handle irq_request()/irq_free() ourselves,
> or can we skip some of these steps if we let the kernel handle
> disabling/enabling IRQs during s/r?

If you do not free the interrupt on suspend, then the core does the right
thing. Though you should not inflict an interrupt storm in that case either :)

Thanks,

	tglx