[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5375E037.1050103@citrix.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:53:59 +0100
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv2 net-next] xen-netback: fix race between
napi_complete() and interrupt handler
On 16/05/14 09:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 18:17 +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
>> When the NAPI budget was not all used, xenvif_poll() would call
>> napi_complete() /after/ enabling the interrupt. This resulted in a
>> race between the napi_complete() and the napi_schedule() in the
>> interrupt handler. The use of local_irq_save/restore() avoided by
>> race iff the handler is running on the same CPU but not if it was
>> running on a different CPU.
>>
>> Fix this properly by calling napi_complete() before reenabling
>> interrupts (in the xenvif_napi_schedule_or_enable_irq() call).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> - Rename xenvif_check_rx_xenvif() to
>> xenvif_napi_schedule_or_enable_irq() to make it more obvious what it
>> does.
>
> Which is to update the event pointer such that IRQs are generated again
> rather than enabling IRQs as such (enable_irq makes me think of
> EFLAGS.IF). But given that I can't think of a better way to describe it:
> Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
Would xenvif_napi_schedule_or_enable_event() be better?
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists