Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:31:27 +0000
Message-ID: <8735j8ykfk.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        David Decotigny <ddecotig@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] genirq: Managed affinity fixes
In-Reply-To: <d7019731-4ade-ea79-7464-f52872a60d79@huawei.com>
References: <20220321193608.975495-1-maz@kernel.org>
        <a83da394-dcc0-c9a6-1569-9c30fbc291fd@huawei.com>
        <87a6dhxd13.wl-maz@kernel.org>
        <d7019731-4ade-ea79-7464-f52872a60d79@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.1
 (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 Wed, 23 Mar 2022 10:58:33 +0000,
Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2022/3/23 16:56, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Hi Xiongfeng,
> > 
> > On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 03:52:46 +0000,
> > Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Marc
> >>
> >> On 2022/3/22 3:36, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> John (and later on David) reported[1] a while ago that booting with
> >>> maxcpus=1, managed affinity devices would fail to get the interrupts
> >>> that were associated with offlined CPUs.
> >>>
> >>> Similarly, Xiongfeng reported[2] that the GICv3 ITS would sometime use
> >>> non-housekeeping CPUs instead of the affinity that was passed down as
> >>> a parameter.
> >>>
> >>> [1] can be fixed by not trying to activate these interrupts if no CPU
> >>> that can satisfy the affinity is present (a patch addressing this was
> >>> already posted[3])
> >>>
> >>> [2] is a consequence of affinities containing non-online CPUs being
> >>> passed down to the interrupt controller driver and the ITS driver
> >>> trying to paper over that by ignoring the affinity parameter and doing
> >>> its own (stupid) thing. It would be better to (a) get the core code to
> >>> remove the offline CPUs from the affinity mask at all times, and (b)
> >>> fix the drivers so that they can trust the core code not to trip them.
> >>>
> >>> This small series, based on 5.17, addresses the above.
> >>
> >> I have tested this patchset on D06. It works well with kernel parameter
> >> 'maxcpus=1' or 'nohz_full=1-127 isolcpus=nohz,domain,managed_irq,1-127'.
> >> Also the 'effective_affinity' is correct. Thanks!
> > 
> > Thanks for having given it a go.
> > 
> >> By the way, I merged the second patch manually because of conflicts.
> >> Maybe I lack some patches on your local repo.
> > 
> > That's odd, as the patches are directly sitting on top of 5.17 in my
> > tree (see [1]). Do you have any out of tree patches around? Please
> > make sure you test this without any extra change.
> 
> I apply the patchset based on the latest mainline kernel. The latest commit is
>   commit 3bf03b9a0839c9fb06927ae53ebd0f960b19d408
>   Merge branch 'akpm' (patches from Andrew)
> I didn't change the modification of the second patch. Only resolve the
> context conflicts, which is cause by the following commit.
>   commit 04d4e665a60902cf36e7ad39af1179cb5df542ad
>   sched/isolation: Use single feature type while referring to housekeeping cpumask
> It changed 'HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ' to 'HK_TYPE_MANAGED_IRQ'.

Ah, that's on top of linux/master then. Yeah, I expect some small
conflicts (this is a popular spot). I'll rebase things at some point
once (and if) we agree that patch #2 is the right thing to do.

Thanks,

	M.

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