From: Bjorn Helgaas <helg...@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:02:41 -0500
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:39:08PM +0300, Meelis Roos wrote:
>> > > > I noticed that in 4.13.0-rc4 there is a new error in dmesg on my
>> > > > sparc64
>> > > > t5120 server: can't allocate MSI-X affinity masks.
>> > > >
>> > > > [ 30.274284] qla2xxx [0000:00:00.0]-0005: : QLogic Fibre Channel HBA
>> > > > Driver: 10.00.00.00-k.
>> > > > [ 30.274648] qla2xxx [0000:10:00.0]-001d: : Found an ISP2432 irq 21
>> > > > iobase 0x000000c100d00000.
>> > > > [ 30.275447] qla2xxx 0000:10:00.0: can't allocate MSI-X affinity
>> > > > masks for 2 vectors
>> > > > [ 30.816882] scsi host1: qla2xxx
>> > > > [ 30.877294] qla2xxx: probe of 0000:10:00.0 failed with error -22
>> > > > [ 30.877578] qla2xxx [0000:10:00.1]-001d: : Found an ISP2432 irq 22
>> > > > iobase 0x000000c100d04000.
>> > > > [ 30.878387] qla2xxx 0000:10:00.1: can't allocate MSI-X affinity
>> > > > masks for 2 vectors
>> > > > [ 31.367083] scsi host1: qla2xxx
>> > > > [ 31.427500] qla2xxx: probe of 0000:10:00.1 failed with error -22
>> > > >
>> > > > I do not know if the driver works since nothing is attached to the FC
>> > > > HBA at the moment, but from the error messages it looks like the
>> > > > driver
>> > > > fails to load.
>> > > >
>> > > > I booted 4.12 and 4.11 - the red error is not there but the failure
>> > > > seems to be the same error -22:
>> >
>> > 4.10.0 works, 4.11.0 errors out with EINVAL and 4.13-rc4 errorr sout
>> > with more verbose MSI messages. So something between 4.10 and 4.11 has
>> > broken it.
>>
>> I can not reproduice the older kernels that misbehave. I checked out
>> earlier kernels and recompiled them (old config lost, nothing changed
>> AFAIK), everything works up to 4.12 inclusive.
>>
>> > Also, 4.13-rc4 is broken on another sun4v here (T1000). So it seems to
>> > be sun4v interrupt related.
>>
>> This still holds - 4.13-rc4 has MSI trouble on at least 2 of my sun4v
>> machines.
>
> IIUC, that means v4.12 works and v4.13-rc4 does not, so this is a
> regression we introduced this cycle.
>
> If nobody steps up with a theory, bisecting might be the easiest path
> forward.
I suspect the test added by:
commit 6f9a22bc5775d231ab8fbe2c2f3c88e45e3e7c28
Author: Michael Hernandez <michael.hernan...@cavium.com>
Date: Thu May 18 10:47:47 2017 -0700
PCI/MSI: Ignore affinity if pre/post vector count is more than min_vecs
is triggering.
The rest of the failure cases are memory allocation failures which should
not be happening here.
There have only been 5 commits to kernel/irq/affinity.c since v4.10
I suppose we have been getting away with something that has silently
been allowed in the past, or something like that.
Meelis can you run with the following debuggingspatch?
diff --git a/kernel/irq/affinity.c b/kernel/irq/affinity.c
index d69bd77252a7..d16c6326000a 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/affinity.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/affinity.c
@@ -110,6 +110,9 @@ irq_create_affinity_masks(int nvecs, const struct
irq_affinity *affd)
struct cpumask *masks;
cpumask_var_t nmsk, *node_to_present_cpumask;
+ pr_info("irq_create_affinity_masks: nvecs[%d] affd->pre_vectors[%d] "
+ "affd->post_vectors[%d]\n",
+ nvecs, affd->pre_vectors, affd->post_vectors);
/*
* If there aren't any vectors left after applying the pre/post
* vectors don't bother with assigning affinity.
