Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 20 Jun 2015 00:47:43 +0800 | From | Jiang Liu <> | Subject | Re: [-next] !irqd_can_balance() WARNINGs at irq_move_masked_irq() |
| |
On 2015/6/20 0:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Jiang Liu wrote: >> On 2015/6/20 0:15, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Jiang Liu wrote: >>> >>>> [...] >>>>>> 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:) >>> >>> Right, that's why I removed the restriction. I just wonder why we have >>> not seen that before ... >> I suspected it's caused by the hierarchy irqdomain at first glance >> because the multiple irq_datas issue, but seems it's not after checking >> the code. It will only be triggered if HPET works in MSI mode instead of >> legacy IRQ mode, but still need more investigation here. > > Right. And what confuses me is that this happens on irq0, which is > ioapic edge. Hi Thomas, One possible cause is that hpet_assign_irq() fails, and the code below treats 0 as a valid irq number(which should be fixed). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- static void hpet_msi_capability_lookup() { ......................... irq = hpet_assign_irq(hpet_domain, hdev, hdev->num); if (irq < 0) continue;
sprintf(hdev->name, "hpet%d", i); hdev->num = i; hdev->irq = irq; hdev->flags = 0; ............................... }
Hi Sergey, Could you please help to apply the debug patch below and check the log message? Thanks! Gerry -------------------------------------------------------------------- diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c index 40cf79a55fe7..28a65d94fd89 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c @@ -578,8 +578,11 @@ static void hpet_msi_capability_lookup(unsigned int start_timer) continue;
irq = hpet_assign_irq(hpet_domain, hdev, hdev->num); - if (irq < 0) + if (irq <= 0) { + pr_warn("irqdomain: fails to allocate irq for hpet%d\n", + hdev->num); continue; + }
sprintf(hdev->name, "hpet%d", i); hdev->num = i; ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |