Re: [v1][PATCH 1/1] KVM: PPC: disable preemption when using hard_irq_disable()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 07/12/2013 11:57 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 10:13 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
#define hard_irq_disable()    do {                    \
       u8 _was_enabled = get_paca()->soft_enabled;     \

Current problem I met is issued from the above line.

       __hard_irq_disable();                           \
-     get_paca()->soft_enabled = 0;                   \

Not here.

If I'm misunderstanding what you guys means, please correct me since this is a
long discussion thread. I have to reread that carefully.

Then make it
	u8 _was_enabled;
	__hard_irq_disable();
	was_enabled = local_paca->....

Once you have hard disabled, using local_paca directly *should* be safe
(minus that gcc problem I mentioned).

Is the following fine?

powerpc: to access local paca after hard irq disabled

We can access paca directly after hard interrupt disabled, and
this can avoid accessing wrong paca when using get_paca() in
preempt case.

Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h |    7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h
index ba713f1..10be1dd 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_irq.h
@@ -96,10 +96,11 @@ static inline bool arch_irqs_disabled(void)
 #endif

 #define hard_irq_disable()     do {                    \
-       u8 _was_enabled = get_paca()->soft_enabled;     \
+       u8 _was_enabled;                                \
        __hard_irq_disable();                           \
-       get_paca()->soft_enabled = 0;                   \
-       get_paca()->irq_happened |= PACA_IRQ_HARD_DIS;  \
+       _was_enabled = local_paca->soft_enabled;        \
+       local_paca->soft_enabled = 0;                   \
+       local_paca->irq_happened |= PACA_IRQ_HARD_DIS;  \
        if (_was_enabled)                               \
                trace_hardirqs_off();                   \
 } while(0)
--
1.7.9.5


Or what about that change to call SOFT_DISABLE_INTS only in KVM scenario? Which better?

Then I can send to review?

Thanks,

Tiejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux