lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable
Matt Mackall wrote:
> I don't know that you need an xchg there. If you're still on the same
> CPU, it should all be nice and causal even across an interrupt handler.
> So it could be:
>
> pda.intr_mask = 0; /* intr_pending can't get set after this */
>

Why not? Oh, I see. intr_mask is inverted form of EFLAGS_IF.

> if (unlikely(pda.intr_pending)) {
> pda.intr_pending = 0;
> asm("sti");
> }
>
> (This would actually need a C barrier, but I'll ignore that as this'd
> end up being asm...)
>
> But other interesting things could happen. If we never did a real CLI
> and we get preempted and switched to another CPU between clearing
> intr_mask and checking intr_pending, we get a little confused.
>

I think Jeremy's idea was to have interrupt handlers leave interrupts
disabled on exit if pda.intr_mask was set. In which case, they would
bypass all work and we could never get preempted. I don't think leaving
hardware interrupts disabled for such a long time is good though.

> But perhaps that doesn't matter because we'd by definition have no
> pending interrupts on either processor?
>
> Is it expensive to do an STI if interrupts are already enabled?
>

Yes.

Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-03-21 00:11    [W:0.897 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site