[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/events: Mask a moving irq
On 17/03/16 16:53, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 03/17/2016 12:03 PM, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 17/03/16 12:45, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> Moving an unmasked irq may result in irq handler being invoked on both >>> source and target CPUs. >>> >>> With 2-level this can happen as follows: >>> >>> On source CPU: >>> evtchn_2l_handle_events() -> >>> generic_handle_irq() -> >>> handle_edge_irq() -> >>> eoi_pirq(): >>> irq_move_irq(data); >>> >>> /***** WE ARE HERE *****/ >>> >>> if (VALID_EVTCHN(evtchn)) >>> clear_evtchn(evtchn); >>> >>> If at this moment target processor is handling an unrelated event in >>> evtchn_2l_handle_events()'s loop it may pick up our event since target's >>> cpu_evtchn_mask claims that this event belongs to it *and* the event is >>> unmasked and still pending. At the same time, source CPU will continue >>> executing its own handle_edge_irq(). >>> >>> With FIFO interrupt the scenario is similar: irq_move_irq() may result >>> in a EVTCHNOP_unmask hypercall which, in turn, may make the event >>> pending on the target CPU. >>> >>> We can avoid this situation by moving and clearing the event while >>> keeping event masked. >> Can you do: >> >> if (unlikely(irqd_is_setaffinity_pending(data))) { >> masked = test_and_set_mask() >> >> clear_evtchn() >> irq_move_masked_irq() > > I did think about this but then I wasn't sure whether this might open > some other window for things to sneak in. It shouldn't but these things > are rather subtle so I'd rather leave the order of how operations are > done unchanged. This is the order your patch has though. I'm confused. > But I should indeed use irq_move_masked_irq() instead of irq_move_irq(). David _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |