Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] xen/events: bug fixes and some diagnostic aids
To:     =?UTF-8?B?SsO8cmdlbiBHcm/Dnw==?= <jgross@suse.com>,
        xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=c3=a9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
        Paul Durrant <paul@xen.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
References: <20210206104932.29064-1-jgross@suse.com>
 <bd63694e-ac0c-7954-ec00-edad05f8da1c@xen.org>
 <eeb62129-d9fc-2155-0e0f-aff1fbb33fbc@suse.com>
 <fcf3181b-3efc-55f5-687c-324937b543e6@xen.org>
 <7aaeeb3d-1e1b-6166-84e9-481153811b62@suse.com>
 <6f547bb5-777a-6fc2-eba2-cccb4adfca87@xen.org>
 <0d623c98-a714-1639-cc53-f58ba3f08212@suse.com>
 <28399fd1-9fe8-f31a-6ee8-e78de567155b@xen.org>
 <1831964f-185e-31bb-2446-778f2c18d71b@suse.com>
From:   Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>
Message-ID: <e8c46e36-cf9e-fb30-21b5-fa662834a01a@xen.org>
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:16:41 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1831964f-185e-31bb-2446-778f2c18d71b@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 08/02/2021 12:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 08.02.21 11:40, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Juergen,
>>
>> On 08/02/2021 10:22, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> On 08.02.21 10:54, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> ... I don't really see how the difference matter here. The idea is 
>>>> to re-use what's already existing rather than trying to re-invent 
>>>> the wheel with an extra lock (or whatever we can come up).
>>>
>>> The difference is that the race is occurring _before_ any IRQ is
>>> involved. So I don't see how modification of IRQ handling would help.
>>
>> Roughly our current IRQ handling flow (handle_eoi_irq()) looks like:
>>
>> if ( irq in progress )
>> {
>>    set IRQS_PENDING
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> do
>> {
>>    clear IRQS_PENDING
>>    handle_irq()
>> } while (IRQS_PENDING is set)
>>
>> IRQ handling flow like handle_fasteoi_irq() looks like:
>>
>> if ( irq in progress )
>>    return;
>>
>> handle_irq()
>>
>> The latter flow would catch "spurious" interrupt and ignore them. So 
>> it would handle nicely the race when changing the event affinity.
> 
> Sure? Isn't "irq in progress" being reset way before our "lateeoi" is
> issued, thus having the same problem again? 

Sorry I can't parse this.

And I think we want to keep
> the lateeoi behavior in order to be able to control event storms.

I didn't (yet) suggest to remove lateeoi. I only suggest to use a 
different workflow to handle the race with vCPU affinity.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall