Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1368985 > unrolled thread
| Started by | MaJun <majun258@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-01 05:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-01 10:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[RFC PATCH] genirq: Change the non-balanced irq to balance irq when the cpu of the irq bounded off line MaJun <majun258@huawei.com> - 2016-04-01 05:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH] genirq: Change the non-balanced irq to balance irq when the cpu of the irq bounded off line Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2016-04-01 10:40 +0200
| From | MaJun <majun258@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 05:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [RFC PATCH] genirq: Change the non-balanced irq to balance irq when the cpu of the irq bounded off line |
| Message-ID | <riXWy-6Md-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
From: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com>
When the CPU of a non-balanced irq bounded is off line, the irq will be migrated to other CPUs,
usually the first cpu on-line.
We can suppose the situation if a system has more than one non-balanced irq.
At extreme case, these irqs will be migrated to the same CPU and will cause the
CPU run with high irq pressure, even make the system die.
So, I think maybe we need to change the non-balanced irq to a irq can be
balanced to avoid the problem descried above.
Maybe this is not a good solution for this problem, please offer me some
suggestion if you have a better one.
Signed-off-by: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com>
---
kernel/irq/cpuhotplug.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/irq/cpuhotplug.c b/kernel/irq/cpuhotplug.c
index 011f8c4..80d54a5 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/cpuhotplug.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/cpuhotplug.c
@@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ static bool migrate_one_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
return false;
if (cpumask_any_and(affinity, cpu_online_mask) >= nr_cpu_ids) {
+ if (irq_settings_has_no_balance_set(desc))
+ irqd_clear(d, IRQD_NO_BALANCING);
affinity = cpu_online_mask;
ret = true;
}
--
1.7.1
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 10:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] genirq: Change the non-balanced irq to balance irq when the cpu of the irq bounded off line |
| Message-ID | <rj2My-1GR-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1368985 |
Hi Ma Jun, On 01/04/16 04:28, MaJun wrote: > From: Ma Jun <majun258@huawei.com> > > When the CPU of a non-balanced irq bounded is off line, the irq will be migrated to other CPUs, > usually the first cpu on-line. > > We can suppose the situation if a system has more than one non-balanced irq. > At extreme case, these irqs will be migrated to the same CPU and will cause the > CPU run with high irq pressure, even make the system die. It would take a hell of lot of interrupts (and a very badly designed system) for that system to collapse under the interrupt load. Whatever people tend to think, interrupts are a very rare event. Any moderately ancient CPU can take several hundred of thousand interrupts per second, and you still barely notice it (try any embedded platform with a bunch of MMC controllers...). Now, let's get to the actual question: > So, I think maybe we need to change the non-balanced irq to a irq can be > balanced to avoid the problem descried above. But what makes you think that you can safely clear that flag? If it has been excluding from balancing, that's surely for a good reason, and the device driver that requested this probably doesn't expect the interrupt affinity to change, other than by the effect of CPU hotplug itself. So if you're seeing a problem with an interrupt not being balanced, please first investigate *why* the driver asked for it the first place. But to the best of my understanding, this patch doesn't solve anything. Thanks, N, -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web