Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:23:37 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>, mtosatti@redhat.com,
       kvm@vger.kernel.org,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] eventfd: allow atomic read and waitqueue remove
Message-ID: <20100121172336.GA16707@redhat.com>
References: <20100121162648.GA16458@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1001210857310.8548@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com> <4B588B29.2050100@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B588B29.2050100@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1758
Lines: 45

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 07:13:13PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/21/2010 06:58 PM, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> This is a backport of commit: 03db343a6320f780937078433fa7d8da955e6fce
>>> modified in a way that introduces some code duplication on the one hand,
>>> but reduces the risk of regressing existing eventfd users on the other
>>> hand.
>>>
>>> KVM needs a wait to atomically remove themselves from the eventfd
>>> ->poll() wait queue head, in order to handle correctly their IRQfd
>>> deassign operation.
>>>
>>> This patch introduces such API, plus a way to read an eventfd from its
>>> context.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Avi, Davidel, how about only including the following part for -stable
>>> then?  Reason is, I still would like to be able to use irqfd there, and
>>> getting spurious interrupts 100% of times unmask is done isn't a very
>>> good idea IMO ...
>>>      
>> It's the same thing. Unless there are *real* problems in KVM due to the
>> spurious ints, I still think this is .33 material.
>>    
>
> I agree.
>
> But I think we can solve this in another way in .32: we can clear the  
> eventfd from irqfd->inject work, which is in process context.  The new  
> stuff is only needed for lockless clearing, no?

No, AFAIK there's no way to clear the counter from kernel without
this patch.

> -- 
> Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/