On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:49 AM Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 12 2022, Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:27:41 +0200
> > Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >> My main concern is that we would need to synchronize against a single
> >> interrupt that covers all kinds of I/O interrupts, not just a single
> >> device...
> >>
> >
> > Could we synchronize on struct airq_info's lock member? If we were
> > to grab all of these that might be involved...
>
> Hm, that could possibly narrow the sync down to a subset, which seems
> better. For devices still using classic interrupts, per-device sync
> would be easy.
>
> >
> > AFAIU for the synchronize implementation we need a lock or a set of locks
> > that contain all the possible vring_interrupt() calls with the queuues
> > that belong to the given device as a critical section. That way, one
> > has the acquire's and release's in place so that the vrign_interrupt()
> > either guaranteed to finish before the change of driver_ready is
> > guaranteed to be complete, or it is guaranteed to see the change.
> >
> > In any case, I guess we should first get clear on the first part. I.e.
> > when do we want to allow host->guest notifications.
>
> Also, whether we just care about vring interrupts, or general device
> interrupts (not sure if a config change interrupt may also trigger
> things we do not want to trigger?)
I think only vring interrupts, since the config interrupt hardening is
done via 22b7050a024d7 ("virtio: defer config changed notifications")
Thanks
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
