[PATCH 1/1] powerpc: Ignore IPIs to offline CPUs
Michael Ellerman
michael at ellerman.id.au
Wed Apr 21 23:35:29 EST 2010
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 22:15 -0500, Brian King wrote:
> On 04/20/2010 09:04 PM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > In message <201004210154.o3L1sXaR001791 at d01av04.pok.ibm.com> you wrote:
> >>
> >> Since there is nothing to stop an IPI from occurring to an
> >> offline CPU, rather than printing a warning to the logs,
> >> just ignore the IPI. This was seen while stress testing
> >> SMT enable/disable.
> >
> > This seems like a recipe for disaster. Do we at least need a
> > WARN_ON_ONCE?
>
> Actually we are only seeing it once per offlining of a CPU,
> and only once in a while.
>
> My guess is that once the CPU is marked offline fewer IPIs
> get sent to it since its no longer in the online mask.
Hmm, right. Once it's offline it shouldn't get _any_ IPIs, AFAICS.
> Perhaps we should be disabling IPIs to offline CPUs instead?
You mean not sending them? We do:
void smp_xics_message_pass(int target, int msg)
{
unsigned int i;
if (target < NR_CPUS) {
smp_xics_do_message(target, msg);
} else {
for_each_online_cpu(i) {
if (target == MSG_ALL_BUT_SELF
&& i == smp_processor_id())
continue;
smp_xics_do_message(i, msg);
}
}
}
So it does sound like the IPI was sent while the cpu was online (ie.
before pseries_cpu_disable(), but xics_migrate_irqs_away() has not
caused the IPI to be cancelled.
Problem is I don't think we can just ignore the IPI. The IPI might have
been sent for a smp_call_function() which is waiting for the result, in
which case if we ignore it the caller will block for ever.
I don't see how to fix it :/
cheers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20100421/2cbcd6b0/attachment.pgp>
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list