[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Remove a set operation for VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ when post interrupt to vm.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Zhang, Yang Z <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > George Dunlap wrote on 2015-09-23: >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> On 23.09.15 at 05:50, <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c >>>> @@ -1678,8 +1678,9 @@ static void >> __vmx_deliver_posted_interrupt(struct vcpu *v) >>>> { >>>> unsigned int cpu = v->processor; >>>> - if ( !test_and_set_bit(VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ, >>>> &softirq_pending(cpu)) - && (cpu != smp_processor_id()) ) >>>> + if ( !test_bit(VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ, &softirq_pending(cpu)) + >>>> && pi_test_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) + && (cpu >>>> != smp_processor_id())) >>>> send_IPI_mask(cpumask_of(cpu), posted_intr_vector); >>>> } >>>> } >>> >>> So this still removes the setting of the softirq - how can that be >>> correct (namely in the cpu == smp_processor_id() case)? Did you >>> perhaps mean >>> >>> if ( pi_test_on(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_desc) >>> && !test_and_set_bit(VCPU_KICK_SOFTIRQ, >>> &softirq_pending(cpu)) && (cpu != smp_processor_id())) >> >> So the problem before was setting the SOFTIRQ for another cpu but then >> never sending an interrupt? > > No, the problem is the setting SOFTIRQ doesnât be cleared in time and cause > the subsequent interrupt injection be delayed. Sorry, I misread the original patch. >> Is there a reason why this code isn't using cpu_raise_softirq() here, >> rather than manually doing the same thing (and doing it incorrectly, >> apparently)? > > The vector is different which uses posted_intr_vector here not > EVENT_CHECK_VECTOR. Got it, thanks. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |