[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46008705.6010007@vmware.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:14:45 -0800
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mingo@...e.hu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
chrisw@...s-sol.org, anthony@...emonkey.ws, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops
callsites to make them patchable
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Zachary Amsden wrote:
>
>> I think Jeremy's idea was to have interrupt handlers leave interrupts
>> disabled on exit if pda.intr_mask was set. In which case, they would
>> bypass all work and we could never get preempted.
>>
>
> Yes, I was worried that if we left the isr without actually handling the
> interrupt, it would still be asserted and we'd just get interrupted
> again. The idea is that we avoid touching cli/sti for the common case
> of no interrupts while interrupts are disabled, but we'd still need to
> fall back to using them if an interrupt becomes pending.
>
>
>> I don't think leaving hardware interrupts disabled for such a long
>> time is good though.
>>
>
> How long? It would be no longer than now, and possibly less, wouldn't it?
>
Hmm. Perhaps. Something about the asymmetry bothers me alot though.
Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists