Message ID | 1459481291-10136-1-git-send-email-majun258@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
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,
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; }