Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220507071954.14455-1-jasowang@redhat.com> <875ymd3fd1.fsf@redhat.com>
 <CACGkMEvfkUpsY4LRTuH7w18DZdq+w3=Ef6b-0sG0XvzVUVKdzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220511160147.46cbf2fb.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <CACGkMEtaN6tZrwp3rsxu4Hn1Rev2P06X3BaR4X1cqDxnRdPCKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220516132006.29d28fbe.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <20220516102425-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220516102425-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 09:00:20 +0800
Message-ID: <CACGkMEsgNuZE1hnmOBBrBnSk9iMXw+4NosmytNA-h8XULv0Bdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/9] rework on the IRQ hardening of virtio
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, eperezma <eperezma@redhat.com>,
        Cindy Lu <lulu@redhat.com>,
        Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
        Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

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
>