Re: [PATCH] powerpc - Initialize the irq radix tree earlier

[Sebastien Dugue]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:39:26 +1000 Michael Ellerman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 15:26 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:01:39 +1000 Michael Ellerman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 22:58 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 14:00 +0200, Sebastien Dugue wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:40:56 +1000 Michael Ellerman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This boot ordering stuff is pretty hairy, so I might have missed
> > > > > > something, but this is how the code is ordered AFAICT:
> > > > > > ï
> > > > > > start_kernel()
> > > > > > 	init_IRQ()
> > > > > > 	...
> > > > > > 	local_irq_enable()
> > > > > > 	...
> > > > > > 	rest_init()
> > > > > > 		kernel_thread()
> > > > > > 			kernel_init()
> > > > > > 				smp_prepare_cpus()
> > > > > > 					smp_xics_probe()	(via smp_ops->probe())
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What's stopping us from taking an irq between local_irq_enable() and
> > > > > > smp_xics_probe() ?  Is it just that no one's request_irq()'ed them yet?
> > > > > 
> > > > >   It's hairy, I agree, but as you've mentioned no one has done a request_irq()
> > > > > at that point. The first one to do it is smp_xics_probe() for the IPI.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, I don't think that's strong enough. I can trivially cause irqs to
> > > > fire during a kexec reboot just by mashing the keyboard.
> > > > 
> > > > And during a kdump boot all sorts of stuff could be firing. Even during
> > > > a clean boot, from firmware, I don't think we can guarantee that
> > > > nothing's going to fire.
> > > > 
> > > > .. after a bit of testing ..
> > > > 
> > > > It seems it actually works (sort of). 
> > > > 
> > > > xics_remap_irq() calls irq_radix_revmap_lookup(), which calls:
> > > > 
> > > > ptr = radix_tree_lookup(&host->revmap_data.tree, hwirq);
> > > > 
> > > > And because ïhost->revmap_data.tree was zalloc'ed we trip on the first
> > > > check here:
> > > 
> > > @#$% ctrl-enter == send!
> > > 
> > > Continuing ...
> > > 
> > > void *radix_tree_lookup(struct radix_tree_root *root, unsigned long index)
> > > {
> > >         unsigned int height, shift;
> > >         struct radix_tree_node *node, **slot;
> > > 
> > >         node = rcu_dereference(root->rnode);
> > >         if (node == NULL)
> > >                 return NULL;
> > > 
> > > Which means ïirq_radix_revmap_lookup() will return NO_IRQ, which is cool.
> > 
> >   Which is what I intended so that as long as no IRQ is registered we
> > return NO_IRQ.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So I think it can fly, as long as we're happy that we can't reverse map
> > > anything until smp_xics_probe() - and I think that's true, as any irq we
> > > take will be invalid.
> > 
> >   That's true as no IRQs are registered before smp_xics_probe() and for any
> > interrupt we might get before that, irq_radix_revmap_lookup() will return
> > NO_IRQ.
> 
> Cool, we agree :) 
> 
> My only worry is that we might be relying on on the particular radix
> tree implementation a bit too much.

  Well maybe we could revert back to testing a flag just like we
do for host->revmap_data.tree.gfp_mask != 0. Dunno.

> Is it documented somewhere that
> the /very/ first check is for ïroot->rnode != NULL, and the rest of the
> root may be unintialised?

  Not in anything I could read except in looking at the code.

> 
> And I think it needs a big fat comment in the irq code saying that it's
> safe because revmap_data is zalloc'ed, and that means the radix lookup
> will fail (safely).

  Yep, right. Will advertise this properly for the next round if this
remains the prefered solution.

  Thanks,

  Sebastien.



--
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/