[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1206041458490.3086@ionos>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:07:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"yongjie.ren@...el.com" <yongjie.ren@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use IRQF_ONESHOT for assigned device MSI
interrupts
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-04 13:21, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So this shortcut requires some checks before being applied to a specific
> MSI/MSI-X vector.
>
>
> Taking KVM aside, my general question remains if threaded MSI handlers
> of all devices really need to apply IRQF_ONESHOT though they should have
> no use for it.
In theory no, but we had more than one incident, where threaded irqs
w/o a primary handler and w/o IRQF_ONEHSOT lead to full system
starvation. Linus requested this sanity check and I think it's sane
and required.
In fact it's a non issue for MSI. MSI uses handle_edge_irq which does
not mask the interrupt. IRQF_ONESHOT is a noop for that flow handler.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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