Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 10 Oct 2020 10:34:04 +0100
Message-ID: <877drypgqb.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com>
Cc:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, daniel.thompson@linaro.org,
        jason@lakedaemon.net, kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net,
        dianders@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jason.wessel@windriver.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: Add framework to turn IPI as NMI
In-Reply-To: <20201010015855.vksetnj4luft5enc@gabell>
References: <1599830924-13990-1-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org>
        <1599830924-13990-2-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org>
        <20201010015855.vksetnj4luft5enc@gabell>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/26.3
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:58:55 +0100,
Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> > +void ipi_nmi_setup(int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	if (!ipi_desc)
> > +		return;
> 
> ipi_nmi_setup() may be called twice for CPU0:
> 
>   set_smp_ipi_range => set_smp_ipi_nmi => ipi_nmi_setup
>                     => ipi_setup => ipi_nmi_setup
> 
> Actually, I got the following error message via the second ipi_nmi_setup():
> 
>   GICv3: Pseudo-NMIs enabled using relaxed ICC_PMR_EL1 synchronisation
>   GICv3: Cannot set NMI property of enabled IRQ 8
>   genirq: Failed to setup NMI delivery: irq 8
> 
> Why don't we have a check to prevent that? Like as:
> 
>        if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ipi_desc->percpu_enabled))
>                return;

That's definitely the wrong thing to do. prepare_nmi_setup() shouldn't
be called twice, and papering over it isn't acceptable.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.