Re: [PATCH] arm64: fix a migrating irq bug when hotplug cpu

[Hanjun Guo]

On 08/30/2015 02:12 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2015-08-29 16:12, Jiang Liu wrote:
> > On 2015/8/29 21:00, Yang Yingliang wrote:
> > > From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > When cpu is disabled, all irqs will be migratged to another cpu.
> > > In some cases, a new affinity is different, it needed to be coppied
> > > to irq's affinity. But if the type of irq is LPI, it's affinity will
> > > not be coppied because of irq_set_affinity's return value.
> > > So copy the affinity, when the return value is IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE.
> > Hi Yingliang,
> >     If irq_set_affinity callback returns IRQ_SET_MASK_OK_DONE,
> > it means that irq_set_affinity has copied the new CPU mask to irq
> > affinity mask. It would be better to change irq_set_affinity for LPI
> > to follow this rule.
>
> The main issue here seems to be that we do not call irq_set_affinity, but
> that we directly call into the top-level irqchip method, which relies on
> the core code to do the copy (see irq_do_set_affinity). Too bad.
>
> It feels like the arm/arm64 code would probably be better consolidated into
> kernel/irq/migration.c, which already deals with some of this for x86
> and ia64. It would save us the duplication and will make sure we don't
> miss things next time we add a new return code, as irq_do_set_affinity
> would handle this properly.
>
> Thoughts?

I agree. In arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c the irq migrate code is the same
as ARM32, and it's duplicate. But this is a bugfix, can we fix it in
a simple way, and refactor the code later?

Thanks
Hanjun
--
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/