Dmitry Safonov <dima@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 6/14/19 11:08 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ void set_hv_tscchange_cb(void (*cb)(void))
>>> struct hv_reenlightenment_control re_ctrl = {
>>> .vector = HYPERV_REENLIGHTENMENT_VECTOR,
>>> .enabled = 1,
>>> - .target_vp = hv_vp_index[smp_processor_id()]
>>> + .target_vp = hv_vp_index[raw_smp_processor_id()]
>>> };
>>> struct hv_tsc_emulation_control emu_ctrl = {.enabled = 1};
>>>
>>
>> Yes, this should do, thanks! I'd also suggest to leave a comment like
>> /*
>> * This function can get preemted and migrate to a different CPU
>> * but this doesn't matter. We just need to assign
>> * reenlightenment notification to some online CPU. In case this
>> * CPU goes offline, hv_cpu_die() will re-assign it to some
>> * other online CPU.
>> */
>
> What if the cpu goes down just before wrmsrl()?
> I mean, hv_cpu_die() will reassign another cpu, but this thread will be
> resumed on some other cpu and will write cpu number which is at that
> moment already down?
>
Right you are, we need to guarantee wrmsr() happens before the CPU gets
a chance to go offline: we don't save the cpu number anywhere, we just
read it with rdmsr() in hv_cpu_die().
>
> And I presume it's guaranteed that during hv_cpu_die() no other cpu may
> go down:
> : new_cpu = cpumask_any_but(cpu_online_mask, cpu);
> : re_ctrl.target_vp = hv_vp_index[new_cpu];
> : wrmsrl(HV_X64_MSR_REENLIGHTENMENT_CONTROL, *((u64 *)&re_ctrl));
I *think* I got convinced that CPUs don't go offline simultaneously when
I was writing this.
--
Vitaly
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
