Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: PCI MSI issue for maxcpus=1 | From | John Garry <> | Date | Mon, 17 Jan 2022 11:59:58 +0000 |
| |
On 17/01/2022 09:14, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> I guess that for managed interrupts, it shouldn't matter, as these >> interrupts should only be used when the relevant CPUs come online. >> >> Would something like below help? Totally untested, as I don't have a >> Multi-MSI capable device that I can plug in a GICv3 system (maybe I >> should teach that to a virtio device...).
JFYI, NVMe PCI uses the same API (pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity()), but does not suffer from this issue - for maxcpus=1 the driver looks to only want 1x vector
> Actually, if the CPU online status doesn't matter for managed affinity > interrupts, then the correct fix is this: > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c > index d25b7a864bbb..af4e72a6be63 100644 > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c > @@ -1624,7 +1624,7 @@ static int its_select_cpu(struct irq_data *d, > > cpu = cpumask_pick_least_loaded(d, tmpmask); > } else { > - cpumask_and(tmpmask, irq_data_get_affinity_mask(d), cpu_online_mask); > + cpumask_copy(tmpmask, irq_data_get_affinity_mask(d)); > > /* If we cannot cross sockets, limit the search to that node */ > if ((its_dev->its->flags & ITS_FLAGS_WORKAROUND_CAVIUM_23144) &&
That produces a warn:
[ 7.833025] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 7.837634] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 44 at drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c:298 valid_col+0x14/0x24 [ 7.846324] Modules linked in: [ 7.849368] CPU: 0 PID: 44 Comm: kworker/0:3 Not tainted 5.16.0-dirty #119 [ 7.856230] Hardware name: Huawei D06 /D06, BIOS Hisilicon D06 UEFI RC0 - V1.16.01 03/15/2019 [ 7.864740] Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn [ 7.869088] pstate: 804000c9 (Nzcv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) [ 7.876037] pc : valid_col+0x14/0x24 [ 7.879600] lr : its_build_mapti_cmd+0x84/0x90
...
[ 7.961007] valid_col+0x14/0x24 [ 7.964223] its_send_single_command+0x4c/0x150 [ 7.968741] its_irq_domain_activate+0xc8/0x104 [ 7.973259] __irq_domain_activate_irq+0x5c/0xac [ 7.977865] __irq_domain_activate_irq+0x38/0xac [ 7.982471] irq_domain_activate_irq+0x3c/0x64 [ 7.986902] __msi_domain_alloc_irqs+0x1a8/0x2f4 [ 7.991507] msi_domain_alloc_irqs+0x20/0x2c [ 7.995764] __pci_enable_msi_range+0x2ec/0x590 [ 8.000284] pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity+0xe0/0x140 [ 8.005410] hisi_sas_v3_probe+0x300/0xbe0 [ 8.009494] local_pci_probe+0x44/0xb0 [ 8.013232] work_for_cpu_fn+0x20/0x34 [ 8.016969] process_one_work+0x1d0/0x354 [ 8.020966] worker_thread+0x2c0/0x470 [ 8.024703] kthread+0x17c/0x190 [ 8.027920] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 [ 8.031485] ---[ end trace bb67cfc7eded7361 ]---
Apart from this, I assume that if another cpu comes online later in the affinity mask I would figure that we want to target the irq to that cpu (which I think we would not do here).
Cheers, John
| |