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" isissued, 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? 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. Juergen
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
