[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <db19fbd4-f613-b8b5-3d46-eaa674417e4f@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:21:02 +0100
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Julien Grall <julien@....org>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] xen/events: don't unmask an event channel when an eoi
is pending
On 08.02.21 11:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 06.02.2021 11:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> @@ -1798,6 +1818,29 @@ static void mask_ack_dynirq(struct irq_data *data)
>> ack_dynirq(data);
>> }
>>
>> +static void lateeoi_ack_dynirq(struct irq_data *data)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(data->irq);
>> + evtchn_port_t evtchn = info ? info->evtchn : 0;
>> +
>> + if (VALID_EVTCHN(evtchn)) {
>> + info->eoi_pending = true;
>> + mask_evtchn(evtchn);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void lateeoi_mask_ack_dynirq(struct irq_data *data)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(data->irq);
>> + evtchn_port_t evtchn = info ? info->evtchn : 0;
>> +
>> + if (VALID_EVTCHN(evtchn)) {
>> + info->masked = true;
>> + info->eoi_pending = true;
>> + mask_evtchn(evtchn);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> static int retrigger_dynirq(struct irq_data *data)
>> {
>> evtchn_port_t evtchn = evtchn_from_irq(data->irq);
>> @@ -2023,8 +2066,8 @@ static struct irq_chip xen_lateeoi_chip __read_mostly = {
>> .irq_mask = disable_dynirq,
>> .irq_unmask = enable_dynirq,
>>
>> - .irq_ack = mask_ack_dynirq,
>> - .irq_mask_ack = mask_ack_dynirq,
>> + .irq_ack = lateeoi_ack_dynirq,
>> + .irq_mask_ack = lateeoi_mask_ack_dynirq,
>>
>> .irq_set_affinity = set_affinity_irq,
>> .irq_retrigger = retrigger_dynirq,
>>
>
> Unlike the prior handler the two new ones don't call ack_dynirq()
> anymore, and the description doesn't give a hint towards this
> difference. As a consequence, clear_evtchn() also doesn't get
> called anymore - patch 3 adds the calls, but claims an older
> commit to have been at fault. _If_ ack_dynirq() indeed isn't to
> be called here, shouldn't the clear_evtchn() calls get added
> right here?
There was clearly too much time between writing this patch and looking
at its performance impact. :-(
Somehow I managed to overlook that I just introduced the bug here. This
OTOH explains why there are not tons of complaints with the current
implementation. :-)
Will merge patch 3 into this one.
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3092 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists