Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Jun 2015 00:12:41 +0800 | From | Jiang Liu <> | Subject | Re: [-next] !irqd_can_balance() WARNINGs at irq_move_masked_irq() |
| |
[...] >> Something in the kernel (not yet clear what) tries to move the hpet >> irq 0 by calling irq_set_affinity(). That's an kernel internal >> interface which does not check whether the NO BALANCE flag is set for >> the irq. So the call runs and triggers the move from next interrupt >> machinery which ends up calling irq_move_masked_irq() and that trips >> over the flag and yells. >> >> That's why I changed the WARN to a pr_warn() because we already know >> the call stack. >> >> So the core behaviour is inconsistent. We let the caller of >> irq_set_affinity() succeed and yell later because we think it's wrong. >> >> I'm pretty sure that we must drop the check for NO BALANCE in >> irq_move_masked_irq() and only check for the per_cpu bit, but at the >> same time I really want to know where that call to irq_set_affinity(irq0) >> is coming from. >> >> Can you please collect the output of /proc/timer_list for the previous >> patch and then replace the previous patch with the one below and >> gather all the data again? > > Hi Thomas, > Maybe it's caused by the hpet driver itself? > irq_set_affinity() may set the IRQD_SETAFFINITY_PENDING flag, > thus triggering the warning. And the usage pattern seems reasonable, the IRQF_NOBALANCING flag means nobody may change the affinity except myself:)
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |