Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/irq: Use irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy() in fixup_irqs()

On 8/24/2026 5:45 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 01:51:16PM +0000, Naman Jain wrote:
>> fixup_irqs() re-injects a pending interrupt on its new target CPU by
>> looking at the outermost domain chip and invoking its irq_retrigger()
>> callback directly. That only works when the outermost chip happens to
>> install an irq_retrigger() callback, which is not guaranteed for every
>> irqchip and could lead to lost interrupts on CPU hot-unplug.
>>
>> Use irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy() instead, which walks up the interrupt
>> hierarchy until it finds a chip that implements irq_retrigger().
>>
>> While at it, move the loop-local variables into the loop scope and use a
>> scoped guard for desc->lock.
>>
>> No functional change intended for chips which already provide an
>> irq_retrigger() callback on the outermost domain.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Naman Jain <[email protected]>
> 
> I can pick this up as part of this series but this requires an ack from
> Thomas.
> 
> Wei

Hi Wei,
Patch 1 that you picked is same in v1, v2, so that is fine.
But there's v2 for this series, where the rest of the patches are being 
discussed.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

Regards,
Naman

> 
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/kernel/irq.c | 23 +++++++----------------
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
>> index 30122f0b3af96..ef1bdd3c4659a 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/irq.c
>> @@ -466,11 +466,6 @@ DEFINE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(sysvec_posted_msi_notification)
>>   /* A cpu has been removed from cpu_online_mask.  Reset irq affinities. */
>>   void fixup_irqs(void)
>>   {
>> -	unsigned int vector;
>> -	struct irq_desc *desc;
>> -	struct irq_data *data;
>> -	struct irq_chip *chip;
>> -
>>   	irq_migrate_all_off_this_cpu();
>>   
>>   	/*
>> @@ -489,22 +484,18 @@ void fixup_irqs(void)
>>   	 * vector_lock because the cpu is already marked !online, so
>>   	 * nothing else will touch it.
>>   	 */
>> -	for (vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR; vector < NR_VECTORS; vector++) {
>> -		if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(__this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector])))
>> +	for (unsigned int vector = FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR; vector < NR_VECTORS; vector++) {
>> +		struct irq_desc *desc = __this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector]);
>> +
>> +		if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(desc))
>>   			continue;
>>   
>>   		if (is_vector_pending(vector)) {
>> -			desc = __this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector]);
>> -
>> -			raw_spin_lock(&desc->lock);
>> -			data = irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc);
>> -			chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip(data);
>> -			if (chip->irq_retrigger) {
>> -				chip->irq_retrigger(data);
>> +			guard(raw_spinlock)(&desc->lock);
>> +			if (irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy(&desc->irq_data))
>>   				__this_cpu_write(vector_irq[vector], VECTOR_RETRIGGERED);
>> -			}
>> -			raw_spin_unlock(&desc->lock);
>>   		}
>> +
>>   		if (__this_cpu_read(vector_irq[vector]) != VECTOR_RETRIGGERED)
>>   			__this_cpu_write(vector_irq[vector], VECTOR_UNUSED);
>>   	}
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>>
>>