[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 6/6] VMX: Fixup PI descritpor when cpu is offline
>>> On 31.08.16 at 05:56, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > +void vmx_pi_desc_fixup(int cpu) unsigned int > +{ > + unsigned int new_cpu, dest; > + unsigned long flags; > + struct arch_vmx_struct *vmx, *tmp; > + spinlock_t *new_lock, *old_lock = &per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, cpu).lock; > + struct list_head *blocked_vcpus = &per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, cpu).list; > + > + if ( !iommu_intpost ) > + return; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(old_lock, flags); > + > + list_for_each_entry_safe(vmx, tmp, blocked_vcpus, pi_blocking.list) > + { > + /* > + * We need to find an online cpu as the NDST of the PI descriptor, it > + * doesn't matter whether it is within the cpupool of the domain or > + * not. As long as it is online, the vCPU will be woken up once the > + * notification event arrives. > + */ > +restart: I'd prefer if you did this without label and goto, but in any case labels should be indented by at least one space. Yet ... > + new_cpu = cpumask_any(&cpu_online_map); > + new_lock = &per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, new_cpu).lock; > + > + spin_lock(new_lock); > + > + /* > + * If the new_cpu is not online, that means it became offline between > + * we got 'new_cpu' and acquiring its lock above, we need to find > + * another online cpu instead. Such as, this fucntion is being called > + * on 'new_cpu' at the same time. Can this happen?? > + */ > + if ( !cpu_online(new_cpu) ) > + { > + spin_unlock(new_lock); > + goto restart; > + } ... I think this too has been discussed before: Is this case really possible? You're in the context of a CPU_DEAD or CPU_UP_CANCELED notification, which both get issued with cpu_add_remove_lock held. How can a second CPU go down in parallel? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |