lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/xen: remove unneeded preempt_disable() from xen_irq_enable()
From
Date
On 21.09.21 09:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.09.2021 09:02, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> --- 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.
>> + */
>
> I agree this isn't problematic from a functional perspective, but ...
>
>> barrier(); /* unmask then check (avoid races) */
>> if (unlikely(vcpu->evtchn_upcall_pending))
>> xen_force_evtchn_callback();
>
> ... is a stray call here cheaper than ...
>
>> -
>> - preempt_enable();
>
> ... the preempt_{dis,en}able() pair?

The question is if a stray call in case of preemption (very unlikely)
is cheaper than the preempt_{dis|en}able() pair on each IRQ enabling.

I'm quite sure removing the preempt_*() calls will be a net benefit.


Juergen
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-21 09:59    [W:1.718 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site