On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 5:13 PM Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 11 2022, Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 4:17 PM Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 11 2022, Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:28 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, May 07, 2022 at 03:19:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >> >> > @@ -1106,6 +1130,7 @@ static void virtio_ccw_int_handler(struct ccw_device *cdev,
> >> >> > vcdev->err = -EIO;
> >> >> > }
> >> >> > virtio_ccw_check_activity(vcdev, activity);
> >> >> > + read_lock_irqsave(&vcdev->irq_lock, flags);
> >> >> > for_each_set_bit(i, indicators(vcdev),
> >> >> > sizeof(*indicators(vcdev)) * BITS_PER_BYTE) {
> >> >> > /* The bit clear must happen before the vring kick. */
> >> >>
> >> >> Cornelia sent a lockdep trace on this.
> >> >>
> >> >> Basically I think this gets the irqsave/restore logic wrong.
> >> >> It attempts to disable irqs in the handler (which is an interrupt
> >> >> anyway).
> >> >
> >> > The reason I use irqsave/restore is that it can be called from process
> >> > context (if I was not wrong), e.g from io_subchannel_quiesce().
> >>
> >> io_subchannel_quiesce() should disable interrupts, though? Otherwise, it
> >> would be a bug.
> >
> > Right, it was protected by a spin_lock_irq(), but I can see other
> > cdev->handler() in e.g device_fsm.c, the irq status is not obvious, do
> > they have the same assumption which IRQ is disabled?
>
> Yes, that should be the case for any invocations via the fsm as well.
>
Ok.
> It's been some time since I've worked on that part of the code, though,
> so let's cc: the s390 cio maintainers so that they can speak up if I'm
> wrong.
Ok, I will do that.
Thanks
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
