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? And I think we want to keep the lateeoi behavior in order to be able to control event storms. Juergen
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
