On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 03:08:26PM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> On 2/29/2016 2:24 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 08:19:41AM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >> A crash has been observed when assigning penalty on x86 systems.
> >>
> >> It looks like this problem happens on x86 platforms with IOAPIC and an SCI
> >> interrupt override in the ACPI table with interrupt number greater than
> >> 16. (22 in this example)
> >>
> >> The bug has been introduced by "ACPI, PCI, irq: remove interrupt count
> >> restriction" commit. The code was using kmalloc to resize the interrupt
> >> list. In this use case, the set penalty call is coming from early phase
> >> and the heap is not initialized yet.
> >> ...
> >> Besides from the use case above, there is one more situation where
> >> set_penalty is being called from the init context like. There is support
> >> for setting the penalty through kernel command line.
> >>
> >> Adding support to be called from early context for limited number of
> >> interrupts.
> >
> > I can't believe this whole IRQ penalty thing needs to be so
> > complicated.
> >
> > The only time we actually use the penalty information is when we're
> > attaching a driver to a PCI device, i.e., in this path:
> >
> > pci_device_probe
> > pcibios_alloc_irq
> > pcibios_enable_irq
> >
> > That happens pretty late, so there's no "can't allocate memory during
> > early boot" problem.
>
> Correct, this is the path that code is intended for.
>
> > I bet the only thing that might happen early enough to be an issue is
> > the acpi_penalize_sci_irq() thing, which is a special case that
> > doesn't need to be handled generically.
>
> The second use case is the kernel command line. See the bottom of the code,
> there are routines there to go get the penalty information from command line.
Right. But if we don't *use* the information until later, there's
probably no need to parse the command line and set it up so early.
> How would you like to proceed ?
>
> - merge this to the original patch
> - remove the acpi_penalize_sci_irq code to somewhere else.
> - what about the kernel command line?
There's so much code there, that I think all the code obscures the
fact that there's almost nothing really happening. In broad outline,
I think we care about:
- the legacy ISA IRQs, i.e., the contents of acpi_irq_isa_penalty[]
- acpi_irq_isa= from command line
- acpi_irq_pci= from command line
- which IRQ is used for SCI
- number of PCI Interrupt Link devices sharing an IRQ
I doubt we need any dynamic allocation at all to manage this. We
already have the acpi_irq_isa_penalty[] table statically allocated.
The SCI IRQ is one word. I bet the command-line stuff is only
useful for the 16 ISA IRQs and could be merged into
acpi_irq_isa_penalty[]. Same for acpi_penalize_isa_irq() and
acpi_isa_irq_available(). We could easily compute the
number of links sharing an IRQ by traversing acpi_link_list.
I think only x86 cares about the first three items (legacy ISA IRQs
and command-line args). This should be reflected in the code. Only
x86 calls acpi_irq_penalty_init(), but that's pretty non-obvious.
I think it would be better to completely rewrite this penalty stuff
than to keep making it more complicated by fixing things in the
existing design.
> >> Reported-by: Nalla, Ravikanth <ravikanth.nalla@xxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya <okaya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> index fa28635..14fe3ca 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> >> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ ACPI_MODULE_NAME("pci_link");
> >> #define ACPI_PCI_LINK_FILE_INFO "info"
> >> #define ACPI_PCI_LINK_FILE_STATUS "state"
> >> #define ACPI_PCI_LINK_MAX_POSSIBLE 16
> >> +#define ACPI_PCI_LINK_MAX_EARLY_IRQINFO 1024
> >>
> >> static int acpi_pci_link_add(struct acpi_device *device,
> >> const struct acpi_device_id *not_used);
> >> @@ -473,6 +474,8 @@ struct irq_penalty_info {
> >> };
> >>
> >> static LIST_HEAD(acpi_irq_penalty_list);
> >> +static struct irq_penalty_info early_irq_infos[ACPI_PCI_LINK_MAX_EARLY_IRQINFO];
> >> +static int early_irq_info_counter;
> >>
> >> static int acpi_irq_get_penalty(int irq)
> >> {
> >> @@ -507,10 +510,17 @@ static int acpi_irq_set_penalty(int irq, int new_penalty)
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> - /* nope, let's allocate a slot for this IRQ */
> >> - irq_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*irq_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> - if (!irq_info)
> >> - return -ENOMEM;
> >> + if (!acpi_gbl_permanent_mmap) {
> >> + if (early_irq_info_counter < ARRAY_SIZE(early_irq_infos))
> >> + irq_info = &early_irq_infos[early_irq_info_counter++];
> >> + else
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> + } else {
> >> + /* nope, let's allocate a slot for this IRQ */
> >> + irq_info = kzalloc(sizeof(*irq_info), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!irq_info)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> irq_info->irq = irq;
> >> irq_info->penalty = new_penalty;
> >> @@ -968,3 +978,4 @@ void __init acpi_pci_link_init(void)
> >> register_syscore_ops(&irqrouter_syscore_ops);
> >> acpi_scan_add_handler(&pci_link_handler);
> >> }
> >> +
> >> --
> >> 1.8.2.1
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
>
>
> --
> Sinan Kaya
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
