Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/IO-APIC: refine EOI-ing of migrating level interrupts

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 18/11/11 18:01, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 18/11/11 08:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Now that this is in, could you try (again on the offending system)
>> whether adding e.g. a WARN_ON(vector != desc->arch.old_vector)
>> prior to the just added call to eoi_IO_APIC_irq() (but inside the
>> surrounding if()) would ever trigger (obviously you'd want to make
>> sure that the code path actually gets executed at all - perhaps
>> counting and printing the count once in a while would be the easiest
>> thing to do)?
>>
>> If it does, we obviously need to stay with passing in vector. If not,
>> we'd need to do another round of code inspection to determine
>> whether indeed there's no race when relying on just the stored
>> data.
>>
>> Thanks, Jan
> So long as you also check for arch.old_vector != IRQ_UNASSIGNED_VECTOR,
> this appears to be fine.
>
> I will sort out a patch to change this behavior
>

Wait actually not.  It turns out that there is some race condition which
causes this assertion not to hold.  Over the space of 2 hours with
16guests and dom0 each trying to stress their storage over a line level
interrupt, there have been 5 cases where vector != old_vector.

I presume it is some race condition where the scheduler is attempting to
move IRQs between PCPUs while they are already in a half moved state.

I will attempt to work out what is causing this race condition, but I
have some more important bugs to deal with at the moment.

I guess we can do with the kudge involving having the lapic vector
passed into hw_irq_handler.end until the race condition is identified.

-- 
Andrew Cooper - Dom0 Kernel Engineer, Citrix XenServer
T: +44 (0)1223 225 900, http://www.citrix.com


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel