Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:41:55 -0700 | From | "Yinghai Lu" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/53] dyn_array/nr_irqs/sparse_irq support v10 |
| |
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: > "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Eric W. Biederman >> <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: >>> "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> find something interesting: >>>> >>>> found new irq_cfg for irq 20 >>>> 0 add_pin_to_irq: irq 20 --> apic 0 pin 20 >>>> assign_irq_vector: irq 20 vector 0x59 cpu 5 >>>> IOAPIC[0]: Set routing entry (0-20 -> 0x59 -> IRQ 20 Mode:1 Active:1) >>>> found new irq_desc for irq 20 >>>> pci 0000:00:02.1: PCI INT B -> Link[LUS2] -> GSI 20 (level, low) -> IRQ 20 >>>> >>>> IO APIC #0...... >>>> .... register #00: 00000000 >>>> ....... : physical APIC id: 00 >>>> ....... : Delivery Type: 0 >>>> ....... : LTS : 0 >>>> .... register #01: 00170011 >>>> ....... : max redirection entries: 0017 >>>> ....... : PRQ implemented: 0 >>>> ....... : IO APIC version: 0011 >>>> .... register #02: 00000000 >>>> ....... : arbitration: 00 >>>> .... IRQ redirection table: >>>> NR Dst Mask Trig IRR Pol Stat Dmod Deli Vect: >>>> ... >>>> 14 09 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 59 >>>> ... >>>> >>>> ehci_hcd 0000:00:02.1: USB 2.0 started, EHCI 1.00, driver 10 Dec 2004 >>>> do_IRQ: cannot handle IRQ -1 vector 0x59 cpu 0 >>>> ------------[ cut here ]------------ >>>> Kernel BUG at 40206b11 [verbose debug info unavailable] >>>> invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP >>>> Modules linked in: >>>> >>>> Pid: 70, comm: kasyncinit Not tainted (2.6.27-rc3-tip-00191-g98ccb89-dirty >> #23) >>>> EIP: 0060:[<40206b11>] EFLAGS: 00010092 CPU: 0 >>>> EIP is at do_IRQ+0x6b/0xae >>>> EAX: 00000032 EBX: 00001d28 ECX: 00003434 EDX: 00000046 >>>> ESI: 00000000 EDI: 00000059 EBP: c7a37d3c ESP: c7a37d14 >>>> DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0000 SS: 0068 >>>> Process kasyncinit (pid: 70, ti=c7a36000 task=c79c9860 task.ti=c7a36000) >>>> Stack: 40a74317 40814ea0 ffffffff 00000059 00000000 00000000 ffffffff >> c421bd20 >>>> c7a37d9c c7a37dac c7a37d7c 4020555f c421bd20 00000000 c421bd20 c7a37d9c >>>> c7a37dac c7a37d7c 40b717f8 0000007b 0000007b 000000d8 ffffffa6 4080db6c >>>> Call Trace: >>>> [<4020555f>] ? common_interrupt+0x23/0x28 >>>> >>>> >>>> it is on 16cores system with 32bit bigsmp, so it is using phy_flat >>>> cpu 5 has apicid 9, and ioapic reg setting right with Dmod= 0 ( phys) >>>> >>>> but io_apic controller deliver that interrupt to cpu0 (with apicid = >>>> 4) instead of cpu 5 (with apic id = 9) >>>> >>>> look at the 64 bit, TARGET_CPUS for phys_flat is cpu_online_map >>>> >>>> and 32bit bigsmp TARGET_CPUS is only one cpu set and rotating with online >> cpu... >>>> >>>> Change 32bit bigsmp TARGE_CPUS ? >>> >>> Set vector_allocation_domain to CPU_MASK_ALL on 32bit. That doesn't give us >>> the benefit of per cpu vectors right now, but in my research there has not >>> been a 32bit kernel yet that has needed it. We have never shared vectors >>> between 2 gsi on 32bit x86, we have only collapsed the irq space. >> >> TARGET_CPUS only used by ioapic_xx.c > > Target cpus is a hint to tell us what to do if the user has not. > >> vector_allocator_domain will return cpumask_of_cpu(cpu).. > > Which is a bug for lowest priority delivery mode. But you said > phys_flat and not flat. Which sounds like bigsmp last I read it. > >>> On x86_64 before I did the per cpu vectors there were machines that >>> combined multiple interrupt sources (gsi) into the same irq. So >>> x86_64 has needed the per cpu vectors. >>> >>> Which means in practice that the irq compression on x86_32 was just a hack to >>> with not having enough irq_desc entries. I wish I had realized that last >>> time we were talking, as we could have unilaterally ripped out all of that >>> code as completely unnecessary on x86 and just bumped NR_IRQS to 1024 on >>> the boxes that had more than 256 gsis. >> >> now 32bit and 64bit is the same page now... (bigsmp == phys_flat)... >> >> will continue to merge io_apic_xx.c > > Hmm. In that case I will ask that you look at all of the pieces of > irq migration code, and make certain that they have all come from x86_64.
yes, done. now it is same as 64 bit.
YH
| |