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:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:44:33 -0700
From:   Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc:     "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>
Subject: Re: Question on handling managed IRQs when hotplugging CPUs
Message-ID: <20190129154433.GF15302@localhost.localdomain>
References: <f6f6e031-8b79-439d-c2af-8d3e76f30710@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f6f6e031-8b79-439d-c2af-8d3e76f30710@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:25:48AM -0800, John Garry wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a question on $subject which I hope you can shed some light on.
> 
> According to commit c5cb83bb337c25 ("genirq/cpuhotplug: Handle managed 
> IRQs on CPU hotplug"), if we offline the last CPU in a managed IRQ 
> affinity mask, the IRQ is shutdown.
> 
> The reasoning is that this IRQ is thought to be associated with a 
> specific queue on a MQ device, and the CPUs in the IRQ affinity mask are 
> the same CPUs associated with the queue. So, if no CPU is using the 
> queue, then no need for the IRQ.
> 
> However how does this handle scenario of last CPU in IRQ affinity mask 
> being offlined while IO associated with queue is still in flight?
> 
> Or if we make the decision to use queue associated with the current CPU, 
> and then that CPU (being the last CPU online in the queue's IRQ 
> afffinity mask) goes offline and we finish the delivery with another CPU?
> 
> In these cases, when the IO completes, it would not be serviced and timeout.
> 
> I have actually tried this on my arm64 system and I see IO timeouts.

Hm, we used to freeze the queues with CPUHP_BLK_MQ_PREPARE callback,
which would reap all outstanding commands before the CPU and IRQ are
taken offline. That was removed with commit 4b855ad37194f ("blk-mq:
Create hctx for each present CPU"). It sounds like we should bring
something like that back, but make more fine grain to the per-cpu context.