Re: [PATCH] x86: Add check for number of available vectors beforeCPU down [v2]

[Chen, Gong]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 04:22:09PM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> Okay, how about,
>                         if (irq_has_action(irq) && !irqd_is_per_cpu(data) &&
>                             ((!cpumask_empty(&affinity_new)) &&
>                               !cpumask_subset(&affinity_new, &online_new)) ||
>                              cpumask_empty(&affinity_new))
>                                 this_count++;
> 
I think it is good but a little bit complicated. How about this:

        if (irq_has_action(irq) && !irqd_is_per_cpu(data) &&
            /* add some commments to emphysize the importance of turn */
            (cpumask_empty(&affinity_new) ||
            !cpumask_subset(&affinity_new, &online_new)))

> I tried this with the following examples and AFAICT I get the correct result:
> 
> 1) affinity mask = online mask = 0xf.  CPU 3 (1000b) is down'd.
> 
> this_count is not incremented.
> 
> 2) affinity mask is a non-zero subset of the online mask (which IMO is
> the "typical" case).  For example, affinity_mask = 0x9, online mask = 0xf.  CPU
> 3 is again down'd.
> 
> this_count is not incremented.
> 
> 3) affinity_mask = 0x1, online mask = 0x3. (this is your example).  CPU
> 1 is going down.
> 
> this_count is incremented, as the resulting affinity mask will be 0.
> 
> 4) affinity_mask = 0x0, online mask = 0x7.  CPU 1 is going down.
> 
> this_count is incremented, as the affinity mask is 0.
> 
The 4th scenario is very tricky. If you try to set affinity from user space,
it will return failure because before kernel tried to change the affinity it
will verify it:
int __ioapic_set_affinity(...)
{
...
        if (!cpumask_intersects(mask, cpu_online_mask))
                return -EINVAL;
...
}

So from this point of view, affinity can't be 0. But your patch is very
special because you change it by hand:
        cpu_clear(smp_processor_id(), affinity_new);

so it is reasonable. It makes me thinking a little bit more. In fixup_irqs
we have similar logic but we don't protect it. Maybe it is because currently
the scenario 4 can't happen because we stop it in advance. But who knows
if one day we use it in other situation we will hit this subtle issue
probably.

So, Prarit, I suggest you writing another patch to fix this potential issue
for fixup_irqs. How would you think?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature