[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACGkMEtaN6tZrwp3rsxu4Hn1Rev2P06X3BaR4X1cqDxnRdPCKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 11:31:08 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>, mst <mst@...hat.com>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, eperezma <eperezma@...hat.com>,
Cindy Lu <lulu@...hat.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/9] rework on the IRQ hardening of virtio
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:02 PM Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 10:22:59 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > > CPU0
> > > ----
> > > lock(&vcdev->irq_lock);
> > > <Interrupt>
> > > lock(&vcdev->irq_lock);
> > >
> > > *** DEADLOCK ***
> >
> > It looks to me we need to use write_lock_irq()/write_unlock_irq() to
> > do the synchronization.
> >
> > And we probably need to keep the
> > read_lock_irqsave()/read_lock_irqrestore() logic since I can see the
> > virtio_ccw_int_handler() to be called from process context (e.g from
> > the io_subchannel_quiesce()).
> >
>
> Sounds correct.
As Cornelia and Vineeth pointed out, all the paths the vring_interrupt
is called with irq disabled.
So I will use spin_lock()/spin_unlock() in the next version.
Thanks
>
> Regards,
> Halil
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists