On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 03:08:19PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Matt Mackall wrote:
> >I don't know that you need an xchg there. If you're still on the same
> >CPU, it should all be nice and causal even across an interrupt handler.
> >So it could be:
> >
> > pda.intr_mask = 0; /* intr_pending can't get set after this */
> >
>
> Why not? Oh, I see. intr_mask is inverted form of EFLAGS_IF.
It's not even that. There are two things that can happen:
case 1:
intr_mask = 1;
<interrupt occurs and is deferred>
intr_mask = 0;
/* intr_pending is already set and CLI is in effect */
if(intr_pending)
case 2:
intr_mask = 1;
intr_mask = 0;
<interrupt occurs and is processed>
/* intr_pending remains cleared */
if(intr_pending)
As this is all about local interrupts, it's all on a single CPU and
out of order issues aren't visible..
> >(This would actually need a C barrier, but I'll ignore that as this'd
> >end up being asm...)
..unless the compiler is doing the reordering, of course.
> >But other interesting things could happen. If we never did a real CLI
> >and we get preempted and switched to another CPU between clearing
> >intr_mask and checking intr_pending, we get a little confused.
>
> I think Jeremy's idea was to have interrupt handlers leave interrupts
> disabled on exit if pda.intr_mask was set. In which case, they would
> bypass all work and we could never get preempted.
I was actually worrying about the case where the interrupt came in
"late". But I don't think it's a problem there either.
> I don't think leaving
> hardware interrupts disabled for such a long time is good though.
It can only be worse than the current situation by the amount of time
it takes to defer an interrupt once. On average, it'll be a lot
better as most critical sections are -tiny-.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
