[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/3] x86/xen: use memory barriers when enabling local irqs
On 08/13/2013 10:31 AM, David Vrabel wrote: From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> Because vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask and vcpu->evtchn_upcall_pending are be written by Xen as well as the guest, using barrier() (a compiler-only barrier) in xen_enable_irq() and xen_restore_fl() is not sufficient. Unneeded 'be' and xen_enable_irq -> xen_irq_enable Use mb() (a full memory barrier) instead. Are evtchn_upcall_mask and evtchn_upcall_pending written from the same (physical) processor during the potential race? If yes then I am not surethis will make any difference since I think sysret/iret, syscall and interrupts have implicit mfence.It won't hurt to have mb(), all I am trying to say that this may not be the cause of lost events. -boris Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> --- arch/x86/xen/irq.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c index 01a4dc0..1a8d0d4 100644 --- a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c +++ b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static void xen_restore_fl(unsigned long flags)if (flags == 0) {preempt_check_resched(); - barrier(); /* unmask then check (avoid races) */ + mb(); /* unmask then check (avoid races) */ if (unlikely(vcpu->evtchn_upcall_pending)) xen_force_evtchn_callback(); } @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static void xen_irq_enable(void) /* Doesn't matter if we get preempted here, because any pending event will get dealt with anyway. */- barrier(); /* unmask then check (avoid races) */+ mb(); /* unmask then check (avoid races) */ if (unlikely(vcpu->evtchn_upcall_pending)) xen_force_evtchn_callback(); } _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |