lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V4 0/9] rework on the IRQ hardening of virtio
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:25 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 01:20:06PM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 May 2022 11:31:08 +0800
> > Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > It looks to me we need to use write_lock_irq()/write_unlock_irq() to
> > > > > do the synchronization.
> > > > >
> > > > > And we probably need to keep the
> > > > > read_lock_irqsave()/read_lock_irqrestore() logic since I can see the
> > > > > virtio_ccw_int_handler() to be called from process context (e.g from
> > > > > the io_subchannel_quiesce()).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sounds correct.
> > >
> > > As Cornelia and Vineeth pointed out, all the paths the vring_interrupt
> > > is called with irq disabled.
> > >
> > > So I will use spin_lock()/spin_unlock() in the next version.
> >
> > Can we do some sort of an assertion that if the kernel is built with
> > the corresponding debug features will make sure this assumption holds
> > (and warn if it does not)? That assertion would also document the fact.
>
> Lockdep will do this automatically if you get it wrong, just like it
> did here.
>
> > If an assertion is not possible, I think we should at least place a
> > strategic comment that documents our assumption.
>
> That can't hurt.

I will add some comments here.

Thanks

>
> > Regards,
> > Halil
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-17 03:01    [W:0.126 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site