On 08.02.21 14:09, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Juergen, On 08/02/2021 12:31, Jürgen Groß wrote: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?It is reset after the handler has been called. See handle_irq_event().
Right. And for us this is too early, as we want the next IRQ being handled only after we have called xen_irq_lateeoi().
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.I am a bit confused what you mean by "lateeoi" handling is becoming active. Can you clarify?
See above: the next call of the handler should be allowed only after xen_irq_lateeoi() for the IRQ has been called. If the handler is being called earlier we have the race resulting in the WARN() splats.
Note that are are other IRQ flows existing. We should have a look at them before trying to fix thing ourself.
Fine with me, but it either needs to fit all use cases (interdomain, IPI, real interrupts) or we need to have a per-type IRQ flow. I think we should fix the issue locally first, then we can start to do a thorough rework planning. Its not as if the needed changes with the current flow would be so huge, and I'd really like to have a solution rather sooner than later. Changing the IRQ flow might have other side effects which need to be excluded by thorough testing.
Although, the other issue I can see so far is handle_irq_for_port() will update info->{eoi_cpu, irq_epoch, eoi_time} without any locking. But it is not clear this is what you mean by "becoming active".
As long as a single event can't be handled on multiple cpus at the same time, there is no locking needed. Juergen
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
