[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] x86/xen: remove unneeded preempt_disable() from xen_irq_enable()
On 21.09.21 09:02, Juergen Gross wrote: Disabling preemption in xen_irq_enable() is not needed. There is no risk of missing events due to preemption, as preemption can happen only in case an event is being received, which is just the opposite of missing an event. Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> Please ignore this patch, it is superseded now by "[PATCH v2 0/2] x86/xen: simplify irq pvops" Juergen --- arch/x86/xen/irq.c | 18 +++++++----------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c index dfa091d79c2e..ba9b14a97109 100644 --- a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c +++ b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c @@ -57,24 +57,20 @@ asmlinkage __visible void xen_irq_enable(void) { struct vcpu_info *vcpu;- /*- * We may be preempted as soon as vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask is - * cleared, so disable preemption to ensure we check for - * events on the VCPU we are still running on. - */ - preempt_disable(); - vcpu = this_cpu_read(xen_vcpu); vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask = 0;- /* Doesn't matter if we get preempted here, because any- pending event will get dealt with anyway. */ + /* + * Now preemption could happen, but this is only possible if an event + * was handled, so missing an event due to preemption is not + * possible at all. + * The worst possible case is to be preempted and then check events + * pending on the old vcpu, but this is not problematic. + */barrier(); /* unmask then check (avoid races) */if (unlikely(vcpu->evtchn_upcall_pending)) xen_force_evtchn_callback(); - - preempt_enable(); } PV_CALLEE_SAVE_REGS_THUNK(xen_irq_enable); Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |