Re: MSI interrupt for xhci still lost on 5.6-rc6 after cpu hotplug

From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Fri May 08 2020 - 07:04:49 EST


Ashok,

"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> But as this last one is the migration thread, aka stomp machine, I
>> assume this is a hotplug operation. Which means the CPU cannot handle
>> interrupts anymore. In that case we check the old vector on the
>> unplugged CPU in fixup_irqs() and do the retrigger from there.
>> Can you please add tracing to that one as well?
>
> New tracelog attached. It just happened once.

Correct and it worked as expected.

migration/3-24 [003] d..1 275.665751: msi_set_affinity: quirk[1] new vector allocated, new apic = 4 vector = 36 this apic = 6
migration/3-24 [003] d..1 275.665776: msi_set_affinity: Redirect to new vector 36 on old apic 6
migration/3-24 [003] d..1 275.665789: msi_set_affinity: Transition to new target apic 4 vector 36
migration/3-24 [003] d..1 275.665790: msi_set_affinity: Update Done [IRR 0]: irq 123 Nvec 36 Napic 4
migration/3-24 [003] d..1 275.666792: fixup_irqs: retrigger vector 33 irq 123

So looking at your trace further down, the problem is not the last
one. It dies already before that:

<...>-14 [001] d..1 284.901587: msi_set_affinity: quirk[1] new vector allocated, new apic = 6 vector = 33 this apic = 2
<...>-14 [001] d..1 284.901604: msi_set_affinity: Direct Update: irq 123 Ovec=33 Oapic 2 Nvec 33 Napic 6

Here, the interrupts stop coming in and that's just a regular direct
update, i.e. same vector, different CPU. The update below is updating a
dead device already.

migration/3-24 [003] d..1 284.924960: msi_set_affinity: quirk[1] new vector allocated, new apic = 4 vector = 36 this apic = 6
migration/3-24 [003] d..1 284.924987: msi_set_affinity: Redirect to new vector 36 on old apic 6
migration/3-24 [003] d..1 284.924999: msi_set_affinity: Transition to new target apic 4 vector 36
migration/3-24 [003] d..1 284.925000: msi_set_affinity: Update Done [IRR 0]: irq 123 Nvec 36 Napic 4

TBH, I can't see anything what's wrong here from the kernel side and as
this is new silicon and you're the only ones reporting this it seems
that this is something which is specific to that particular
hardware. Have you talked to the hardware people about this?

Thanks,

tglx