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 21.09.21 10:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.09.2021 09:58, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 21.09.21 09:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> The question is if a stray call in case of preemption (very unlikely)
>> is cheaper than the preempt_{dis|en}able() pair on each IRQ enabling.
>>
>> I'm quite sure removing the preempt_*() calls will be a net benefit.
>
> Well, yes, I agree. It would have been nice if the description pointed
> out the fact that preemption kicking in precisely here is very unlikely.
> But perhaps that's considered rather obvious ... The issue I'm having
> is with the prior comments: They indicated that preemption happening
> before the "pending" check would be okay, _despite_ the
> preempt_{dis,en}able() pair. One could view this as an indication that
> this pair was put there for another reason (e.g. to avoid the stray
> calls). But it may of course also be that the comment simply was stale.

The comment is older than the preempt_*() calls.

Those were added 8 years ago claiming they'd prevent lost events, but
at the same time at lease one other patch was added which really
prevented lost events, so adding the preempt_*() calls might just have
been a guess at that time.

> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Thanks,


Juergen

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-21 10:25    [W:0.042 / U:0.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site