lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] xen/events: bug fixes and some diagnostic aids
From
Date
Hi Juergen,

On 08/02/2021 12:31, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 08.02.21 13:16, Julien Grall wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/02/2021 12:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> On 08.02.21 11:40, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> Hi Juergen,
>>>>
>>>> On 08/02/2021 10:22, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>>> On 08.02.21 10:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>>> ... I don't really see how the difference matter here. The idea is
>>>>>> to re-use what's already existing rather than trying to re-invent
>>>>>> the wheel with an extra lock (or whatever we can come up).
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is that the race is occurring _before_ any IRQ is
>>>>> involved. So I don't see how modification of IRQ handling would help.
>>>>
>>>> Roughly our current IRQ handling flow (handle_eoi_irq()) looks like:
>>>>
>>>> if ( irq in progress )
>>>> {
>>>>    set IRQS_PENDING
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> do
>>>> {
>>>>    clear IRQS_PENDING
>>>>    handle_irq()
>>>> } while (IRQS_PENDING is set)
>>>>
>>>> IRQ handling flow like handle_fasteoi_irq() looks like:
>>>>
>>>> if ( irq in progress )
>>>>    return;
>>>>
>>>> handle_irq()
>>>>
>>>> The latter flow would catch "spurious" interrupt and ignore them. So
>>>> it would handle nicely the race when changing the event affinity.
>>>
>>> Sure? Isn't "irq in progress" being reset way before our "lateeoi" is
>>> issued, thus having the same problem again?
>>
>> Sorry I can't parse this.
>
> handle_fasteoi_irq() will do nothing "if ( irq in progress )". When is
> this condition being reset again in order to be able to process another
> IRQ?
It is reset after the handler has been called. See handle_irq_event().

> I believe this will be the case before our "lateeoi" handling is
> becoming active (more precise: when our IRQ handler is returning to
> handle_fasteoi_irq()), resulting in the possibility of the same race we
> are experiencing now.

I am a bit confused what you mean by "lateeoi" handling is becoming
active. Can you clarify?

Note that are are other IRQ flows existing. We should have a look at
them before trying to fix thing ourself.

Although, the other issue I can see so far is handle_irq_for_port() will
update info->{eoi_cpu, irq_epoch, eoi_time} without any locking. But it
is not clear this is what you mean by "becoming active".

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-08 14:12    [W:0.070 / U:1.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site