public inbox for linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman•id.au>
To: Brian King <brking@linux•vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling•org>, linuxppc-dev@lists•ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] powerpc: Ignore IPIs to offline CPUs
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:35:29 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1271856929.3832.46.camel@concordia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BCE6DDC.4020902@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1788 bytes --]

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 22:15 -0500, Brian King wrote:
> On 04/20/2010 09:04 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > In message <201004210154.o3L1sXaR001791@d01av04•pok.ibm.com> you wrote:
> >>
> >> Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an
> >> offline CPU, rather than printing a warning to the logs,
> >> just ignore the IPI. This was seen while stress testing
> >> SMT enable/disable.
> > 
> > This seems like a recipe for disaster.  Do we at least need a
> > WARN_ON_ONCE?
> 
> Actually we are only seeing it once per offlining of a CPU,
> and only once in a while.
>  
> My guess is that once the CPU is marked offline fewer IPIs
> get sent to it since its no longer in the online mask.

Hmm, right. Once it's offline it shouldn't get _any_ IPIs, AFAICS.

> Perhaps we should be disabling IPIs to offline CPUs instead?

You mean not sending them? We do:

void smp_xics_message_pass(int target, int msg)
{
        unsigned int i;

        if (target < NR_CPUS) {
                smp_xics_do_message(target, msg);
        } else {
                for_each_online_cpu(i) {
                        if (target == MSG_ALL_BUT_SELF
                            && i == smp_processor_id())
                                continue;
                        smp_xics_do_message(i, msg);
                }
        }
}      

So it does sound like the IPI was sent while the cpu was online (ie.
before pseries_cpu_disable(), but xics_migrate_irqs_away() has not
caused the IPI to be cancelled.

Problem is I don't think we can just ignore the IPI. The IPI might have
been sent for a smp_call_function() which is waiting for the result, in
which case if we ignore it the caller will block for ever.

I don't see how to fix it :/

cheers


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-21 13:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-21  1:54 [PATCH 1/1] powerpc: Ignore IPIs to offline CPUs Brian King
2010-04-21  2:04 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-21  3:15   ` Brian King
2010-04-21 13:35     ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
2010-04-21 13:50       ` Brian King
2010-04-21 21:03         ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-21 22:15           ` Brian King
2010-04-21 22:49             ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-21 23:33               ` Brian King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1271856929.3832.46.camel@concordia \
    --to=michael@ellerman$(echo .)id.au \
    --cc=brking@linux$(echo .)vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists$(echo .)ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mikey@neuling$(echo .)org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox