lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/4] kvm: Extend irqfd to support level interrupts
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 06:58:24PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > Back to original point though current
> > > > > > situation is that calling kvm_set_irq() under spinlock is not worse for
> > > > > > scalability than calling it not under one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Still the specific use can just use an atomic flag,
> > > > > lock+bool is not needed, and we won't need to undo it later.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, no, replacing it with an atomic is racy.
> > > >
> > > > CPU0 (inject) CPU1 (EOI)
> > > > atomic_cmpxchg(&asserted, 0, 1)
> > > > atomic_cmpxchg(&asserted, 1, 0)
> > > > kvm_set_irq(0)
> > > > kvm_set_irq(1)
> > > > eventfd_signal
> > > >
> > > > The interrupt is now stuck on until another interrupt is injected.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well EOI somehow happened here before interrupt so it's a bug somewhere
> > > else?
> >
> > Interrupts can be shared. We also can't guarantee that the guest won't
> > write a bogus EOI to the ioapic. The irq ack notifier doesn't filter on
> > irq source id... I'm not sure it can.
>
> I guess if Avi OKs adding another kvm_set_irq under spinlock that's
> the best we can do for now.

Why can't a mutex be used instead of a spinlock again?




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-18 21:41    [W:2.110 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site