Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934340AbZKXXGg (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:06:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934172AbZKXXGf (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:06:35 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:56700 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934154AbZKXXGf (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:06:35 -0500 To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Dimitri Sivanich , Arjan van de Ven , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Suresh Siddha , Yinghai Lu , LKML , Jesse Barnes , David Miller , Peter P Waskiewicz Jr , "H. Peter Anvin" References: <20091120211139.GB19106@sgi.com> <20091122011457.GA16910@sgi.com> <1259069986.4531.1453.camel@laptop> <20091124065022.6933be1a@infradead.org> <20091124214121.GA15182@sgi.com> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:06:33 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Thomas Gleixner's message of "Tue\, 24 Nov 2009 22\:51\:32 +0100 \(CET\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=76.21.114.89;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 76.21.114.89 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Thomas Gleixner X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral * 0.4 UNTRUSTED_Relay Comes from a non-trusted relay Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] x86/apic: limit irq affinity X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3576 Lines: 88 Thomas Gleixner writes: > Please do not put anything complex into x86 code at all. Such designs > are likely to happen on other architectures and as I said before we > want to have > > 1) the decision function what's valid and not in the generic code For the UV problem I don't have an issue. assign_irq_vector enforces some rules that I don't see being able to expose to user space. > 2) a way to expose that information as part of the irq interface to > user space. -EINVAL? > So what's wrong with a per irq_chip function which returns the cpumask > which is valid for irq N ? I have no problems with a generic function to do that. > That function would be called to check the affinity mask in > set_irq_affinity and to dump the mask to /proc/irq/N/possible_cpus or > whatever name we agree on. > > That way we don't have to worry about where in the x86 code the > decision should reside as you simply would always get valid masks from > the core code. Impossible. assign_irq_vector is the only function that can tell you if a mask is valid or not. Currently we support roughly 240 irqs per cpu. Currently we support more than 240 irqs. I don't see how you can enforce that limit. Furthermore irq migration on x86 is a very non-trivial exercise. We must wait until we get a new irq at the new location before we cleanup the irq state at the old location, to ensure that the state change has gone through. At which point again we can not know. So Thomas the logical conclusion that you are requesting. An architecture specific interface for migrating irqs that does not need to return error codes because the generic code has enough information to avoid all problem cases is not going to happen. It is totally unreasonable. > That just works and is neither restricted to UV nor to x86. Doing it all in the core totally fails as it gets the initial irq assignment wrong. Last I looked set_irq_affinity was a horribly broken interface. We can not return error codes to user space when they ask us to do the impossible. Right now irq->affinity is a hint that occasionally we ignore when what it requests is impossible. .... Thomas my apologies for ranting but I am extremely sensitive about people placing demands on the irq code that would be very convenient and simple for the rest of the world, except that the hardware does not work the way people envision it should work. The worst offender is the cpu hotunplug logic that requests we perform the impossible when it comes to irq migration. In the case of UV I expect cpu hotplug is going to request we migrate irqs to another node. Right now a lot of the generic irq code is living in a deluded fantasy and I really don't want to see more impossible requests from the irq code added to the pile. ... The architecture specific function setup_irq_vector has all of the information available to it to make the decision. We use it consistently everywhere. For the case of UV it needs to know about another possible hardware limitation, to do it's job. I am happy if that information comes from an architecture agnostic source but making the decision somewhere else is just a guarantee that we will have more subtle breakage that occasionally fail for people but at too low a rate that people will care enough to fix. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/