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" is
issued, thus having the same problem again?
Sorry I can't parse this.
And I think we want to keep
the lateeoi behavior in order to be able to control event storms.
I didn't (yet) suggest to remove lateeoi. I only suggest to use a
different workflow to handle the race with vCPU affinity.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
