|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 6/6] VMX: Fixup PI descritpor when cpu is offline
>>> On 31.08.16 at 05:56, <feng.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +void vmx_pi_desc_fixup(int cpu)
unsigned int
> +{
> + unsigned int new_cpu, dest;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct arch_vmx_struct *vmx, *tmp;
> + spinlock_t *new_lock, *old_lock = &per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, cpu).lock;
> + struct list_head *blocked_vcpus = &per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, cpu).list;
> +
> + if ( !iommu_intpost )
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(old_lock, flags);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(vmx, tmp, blocked_vcpus, pi_blocking.list)
> + {
> + /*
> + * We need to find an online cpu as the NDST of the PI descriptor, it
> + * doesn't matter whether it is within the cpupool of the domain or
> + * not. As long as it is online, the vCPU will be woken up once the
> + * notification event arrives.
> + */
> +restart:
I'd prefer if you did this without label and goto, but in any case
labels should be indented by at least one space. Yet ...
> + new_cpu = cpumask_any(&cpu_online_map);
> + new_lock = &per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, new_cpu).lock;
> +
> + spin_lock(new_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * If the new_cpu is not online, that means it became offline between
> + * we got 'new_cpu' and acquiring its lock above, we need to find
> + * another online cpu instead. Such as, this fucntion is being called
> + * on 'new_cpu' at the same time. Can this happen??
> + */
> + if ( !cpu_online(new_cpu) )
> + {
> + spin_unlock(new_lock);
> + goto restart;
> + }
... I think this too has been discussed before: Is this case really
possible? You're in the context of a CPU_DEAD or CPU_UP_CANCELED
notification, which both get issued with cpu_add_remove_lock held.
How can a second CPU go down in parallel?
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |