Re: [PATCH 2/3] [BUGFIX] x86/x86_64: fix CPU offlining triggeredinactive device IRQ interrruption

[Gary Hade]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 04:59:35PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Gary Hade <garyhade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 03:30:15PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Gary Hade <garyhade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> > Impact: Eliminates a race that can leave the system in an
> >>> >        unusable state
> >>> >
> >>> > During rapid offlining of multiple CPUs there is a chance
> >>> > that an IRQ affinity move destination CPU will be offlined
> >>> > before the IRQ affinity move initiated during the offlining
> >>> > of a previous CPU completes.  This can happen when the device
> >>> > is not very active and thus fails to generate the IRQ that is
> >>> > needed to complete the IRQ affinity move before the move
> >>> > destination CPU is offlined.  When this happens there is an
> >>> > -EBUSY return from __assign_irq_vector() during the offlining
> >>> > of the IRQ move destination CPU which prevents initiation of
> >>> > a new IRQ affinity move operation to an online CPU.  This
> >>> > leaves the IRQ affinity set to an offlined CPU.
> >>> >
> >>> > I have been able to reproduce the problem on some of our
> >>> > systems using the following script.  When the system is idle
> >>> > the problem often reproduces during the first CPU offlining
> >>> > sequence.
> >>> >
> >>> > #!/bin/sh
> >>> >
> >>> > SYS_CPU_DIR=/sys/devices/system/cpu
> >>> > VICTIM_IRQ=25
> >>> > IRQ_MASK=f0
> >>> >
> >>> > iteration=0
> >>> > while true; do
> >>> >  echo $iteration
> >>> >  echo $IRQ_MASK > /proc/irq/$VICTIM_IRQ/smp_affinity
> >>> >  for cpudir in $SYS_CPU_DIR/cpu[1-9] $SYS_CPU_DIR/cpu??; do
> >>> >    echo 0 > $cpudir/online
> >>> >  done
> >>> >  for cpudir in $SYS_CPU_DIR/cpu[1-9] $SYS_CPU_DIR/cpu??; do
> >>> >    echo 1 > $cpudir/online
> >>> >  done
> >>> >  iteration=`expr $iteration + 1`
> >>> > done
> >>> >
> >>> > The proposed fix takes advantage of the fact that when all
> >>> > CPUs in the old domain are offline there is nothing to be done
> >>> > by send_cleanup_vector() during the affinity move completion.
> >>> > So, we simply avoid setting cfg->move_in_progress preventing
> >>> > the above mentioned -EBUSY return from __assign_irq_vector().
> >>> > This allows initiation of a new IRQ affinity move to a CPU
> >>> > that is not going offline.
> >>> >
> >>> > Signed-off-by: Gary Hade <garyhade@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> >
> >>> > ---
> >>> >  arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c |   11 ++++++++---
> >>> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>> >
> >>> > Index: linux-2.6.30-rc1/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> >>> > ===================================================================
> >>> > --- linux-2.6.30-rc1.orig/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c        2009-04-08 09:23:00.000000000 -0700
> >>> > +++ linux-2.6.30-rc1/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c     2009-04-08 09:23:16.000000000 -0700
> >>> > @@ -363,7 +363,8 @@ set_extra_move_desc(struct irq_desc *des
> >>> >        struct irq_cfg *cfg = desc->chip_data;
> >>> >
> >>> >        if (!cfg->move_in_progress) {
> >>> > -               /* it means that domain is not changed */
> >>> > +               /* it means that domain has not changed or all CPUs
> >>> > +                * in old domain are offline */
> >>> >                if (!cpumask_intersects(desc->affinity, mask))
> >>> >                        cfg->move_desc_pending = 1;
> >>> >        }
> >>> > @@ -1262,8 +1263,11 @@ next:
> >>> >                current_vector = vector;
> >>> >                current_offset = offset;
> >>> >                if (old_vector) {
> >>> > -                       cfg->move_in_progress = 1;
> >>> >                        cpumask_copy(cfg->old_domain, cfg->domain);
> >>> > +                       if (cpumask_intersects(cfg->old_domain,
> >>> > +                                              cpu_online_mask)) {
> >>> > +                               cfg->move_in_progress = 1;
> >>> > +                       }
> >>> >                }
> >>> >                for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, tmp_mask, cpu_online_mask)
> >>> >                        per_cpu(vector_irq, new_cpu)[vector] = irq;
> >>> > @@ -2492,7 +2496,8 @@ static void irq_complete_move(struct irq
> >>> >                if (likely(!cfg->move_desc_pending))
> >>> >                        return;
> >>> >
> >>> > -               /* domain has not changed, but affinity did */
> >>> > +               /* domain has not changed or all CPUs in old domain
> >>> > +                * are offline, but affinity changed */
> >>> >                me = smp_processor_id();
> >>> >                if (cpumask_test_cpu(me, desc->affinity)) {
> >>> >                        *descp = desc = move_irq_desc(desc, me);
> >>> > --
> >>>
> >>> so you mean during __assign_irq_vector(), cpu_online_mask get updated?
> >>
> >> No, the CPU being offlined is removed from cpu_online_mask
> >> earlier via a call to remove_cpu_from_maps() from
> >> cpu_disable_common().  This happens just before fixup_irqs()
> >> is called.
> >>
> >>> with your patch, how about that it just happen right after you check
> >>> that second time.
> >>>
> >>> it seems we are missing some lock_vector_lock() on the remove cpu from
> >>> online mask.
> >>
> >> The remove_cpu_from_maps() call in cpu_disable_common() is vector
> >> lock protected:
> >> void cpu_disable_common(void)
> >> {
> >>               < snip >
> >>        /* It's now safe to remove this processor from the online map */
> >>        lock_vector_lock();
> >>        remove_cpu_from_maps(cpu);
> >>        unlock_vector_lock();
> >>        fixup_irqs();
> >> }
> >
> >
> > __assign_irq_vector always has vector_lock locked...

OK, I see the 'vector_lock' spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_irqrestore
surrounding the __assign_irq_vector call in assign_irq_vector.

> > so cpu_online_mask will not changed during,

I understand that this 'vector_lock' acquisition prevents
multiple simultaneous executions of __assign_irq_vector but
does that really prevent another thread executing outside 
__assign_irq_vector (or outside other 'vector_lock' serialized
code) from modifying cpu_online_mask?

Isn't it really 'cpu_add_remove_lock' (also held when 
__assign_irq_vector() is called in the context of a CPU add
or remove) that is used for this purpose?

> > why do you need to check that again in __assign_irq_vector ?

Because that is where the cfg->move_in_progress flag was
being set.

Is there some reason that the content of cpu_online_mask
cannot be trusted at this location?

If all the CPUs in the old domain are offline doesn't
that imply that we got to that location in response to
a CPU offline request?

> >
> looks like you need to clear move_in_progress in fixup_irqs()

This would be a difficult since I believe the code is
currently partitioned in a manner that prevents access to
irq_cfg records from functions defined in arch/x86/kernel/irq_32.c
and arch/x86/kernel/irq_64.c.  It also doesn't feel right to
allow cfg->move_in_progress to be set in __assign_irq_vector
and then clear it in fixup_irqs().

Gary

-- 
Gary Hade
System x Enablement
IBM Linux Technology Center
503-578-4503  IBM T/L: 775-4503
garyhade@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/