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

From: Prarit Bhargava
Date: Fri Dec 20 2013 - 05:50:27 EST




On 12/20/2013 04:41 AM, rui wang wrote:
> On 12/20/13, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/19/2013 01:05 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Looks good to me.
>>>
>>> Though now I've been confused by an offline question about affinity.
>>
>> Heh :) I'm pursuing it now. Rui has asked a pretty good question that I
>> don't
>> know the answer to off the top of my head. I'm still looking at the code.
>>
>>>
>>> Suppose we have some interrupt that has affinity to multiple cpus. E.g.
>>> (real example from one of my machines):
>>>
>>> # cat /proc/irq/94/smp_affinity_list
>>> 26,54
>>>
>>> Now If I want to take either cpu26 or cpu54 offline - I'm guessing that I
>>> don't
>>> really need to find a new home for vector 94 - because the other one of
>>> that
>>> pair already has that set up. But your check_vectors code doesn't look
>>> like
>>> it accounts for that - if we take cpu26 offline - it would see that
>>> cpu54 doesn't
>>> have 94 free - but doesn't check that it is for the same interrupt.
>>>
>>> But I may be mixing "vectors" and "irqs" here.
>>
>> Yep. The question really is this: is the irq mapped to a single vector or
>> multiple vectors. (I think)
>>
>
> The vector number for an irq is programmed in the LSB of the IOAPIC
> IRTE (or MSI data register in the case of MSI/MSIx). So there can be
> only one vector number (although multiple CPUs can be specified
> through DM). An MSI-capable device can dynamically change the lower
> few bits in the LSB to signal multiple interrupts with a contiguous
> range of vectors in powers of 2,but each of these vectors is treated
> as a separate IRQ. i.e. each of them has a separate irq desc, or a
> separate line in the /proc/interrupt file. This patch shows the MSI
> irq allocation in detail:
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?id=51906e779f2b13b38f8153774c4c7163d412ffd9
>

Yep, that's where I got the idea for the affinity check in my previous post. So
far linux.git top-of-tree + my patch looks good. I'm pulling down
linux-next.git right now ...

P.

> Thanks
> Rui
>
>
>> P.
>>
>>>
>>> -Tony
>> --
>> 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/
>>
--
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/