lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/xen: remove unneeded preempt_disable() from xen_irq_enable()
From
Date
On 21.09.2021 09:02, Juergen Gross wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
> @@ -57,24 +57,20 @@ asmlinkage __visible void xen_irq_enable(void)
> {
> struct vcpu_info *vcpu;
>
> - /*
> - * We may be preempted as soon as vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask is
> - * cleared, so disable preemption to ensure we check for
> - * events on the VCPU we are still running on.
> - */
> - preempt_disable();
> -
> vcpu = this_cpu_read(xen_vcpu);
> vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask = 0;
>
> - /* Doesn't matter if we get preempted here, because any
> - pending event will get dealt with anyway. */
> + /*
> + * Now preemption could happen, but this is only possible if an event
> + * was handled, so missing an event due to preemption is not
> + * possible at all.
> + * The worst possible case is to be preempted and then check events
> + * pending on the old vcpu, but this is not problematic.
> + */

I agree this isn't problematic from a functional perspective, but ...

> barrier(); /* unmask then check (avoid races) */
> if (unlikely(vcpu->evtchn_upcall_pending))
> xen_force_evtchn_callback();

... is a stray call here cheaper than ...

> -
> - preempt_enable();

... the preempt_{dis,en}able() pair?

Jan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-21 09:55    [W:0.064 / U:3.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site