[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28399fd1-9fe8-f31a-6ee8-e78de567155b@xen.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:40:44 +0000
From: Julien Grall <julien@....org>
To: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Paul Durrant <paul@....org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] xen/events: bug fixes and some diagnostic aids
Hi Juergen,
On 08/02/2021 10:22, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 08.02.21 10:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>> ... I don't really see how the difference matter here. The idea is to
>> re-use what's already existing rather than trying to re-invent the
>> wheel with an extra lock (or whatever we can come up).
>
> The difference is that the race is occurring _before_ any IRQ is
> involved. So I don't see how modification of IRQ handling would help.
Roughly our current IRQ handling flow (handle_eoi_irq()) looks like:
if ( irq in progress )
{
set IRQS_PENDING
return;
}
do
{
clear IRQS_PENDING
handle_irq()
} while (IRQS_PENDING is set)
IRQ handling flow like handle_fasteoi_irq() looks like:
if ( irq in progress )
return;
handle_irq()
The latter flow would catch "spurious" interrupt and ignore them. So it
would handle nicely the race when changing the event affinity.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
Powered by blists - more mailing lists