This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migr

On Fri, 6 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Thomas Gleixner
> > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 6:00 PM
> > 
> > On Fri, 6 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them
> > >
> > > it doesn't make sense to mask/unmask a disabled irq when migrating it
> > > from offlined cpu to another, because it's not expected to handle any
> > > instance of it. Current mask/set_affinity/unmask steps may trigger
> > > unexpected instance on disabled irq which then simply bug on when
> > > there is no handler for it. One failing example is observed in Xen.
> > > Xen pvops
> > 
> > So there is no handler, why the heck is there an irq action?
> > 
> >       if (!irq_has_action(irq) ....
> >             continue;
> > 
> > Should have caught an uninitialized interrupt. If Xen abuses interrupts 
> > that way,
> > then it rightfully explodes. And we do not fix it by magic somewhere else.
> sorry that my bad description here. there does be a dummy handler registered
> on such irqs which simply throws out a BUG_ON when hit. I should just say 
> such 
> injection is not expected instead of no handler. :-)

So can please someone point me to that particular incarnation of
nonsense and provide a reasonable explanation for this abuse?

What is the point of an interrupt, which is permanently disabled, has
a handler with a BUG() inside and an irqaction assigned ?

What's the purpose of this? Why is the irqaction there in the first
place? To be called by some other weird means than by the irq
handling code?

> > The only conditional which is interesting is the unmask path and that's a 
> > simple
> > optimization and not a correctness problem.
> > 
> So what's your suggestion based on my updated information? Is there any
> interface I may take to differentiate above exception with normal case? 
> Basically
> in Xen usage we want such irqs permanently disabled at the chip level. Or
> could we only do mask/unmask for irqs which are unmasked atm if as you said
> it's just an optimization step? :-)

No we can make the unmask conditional on !irqd_irq_disabled() because
that's not violating any of the semantics. The interrupt would be
masked anyway when it arrives and the handler code sees that it is
lazy disabled. I mean real handler code, not the Xen abomination.

The only valid reason why I'd apply that patch is that it avoids a
potential extra interrupt, but not to prevent screwed up handlers from



Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>