|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/3] x86/vpt: execute callbacks for masked interrupts
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 06:04:51AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 26.02.18 at 13:48, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:35:54PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:27:41PM +0000, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >> > int pt_update_irq(struct vcpu *v)
> >> > {
> >> > struct list_head *head = &v->arch.hvm_vcpu.tm_list;
> >> > + LIST_HEAD(purged);
> >>
> >> to_purge?
> >
> > My point is that they have already been purged from the pt->list, but
> > I really don't have a preference.
> >
> >> > struct periodic_time *pt, *temp, *earliest_pt;
> >> > uint64_t max_lag;
> >> > int irq, is_lapic, pt_vector;
> >> > @@ -267,7 +289,10 @@ int pt_update_irq(struct vcpu *v)
> >> > {
> >> > /* suspend timer emulation */
> >> > list_del(&pt->list);
> >> > - pt->on_list = 0;
> >> > + if ( pt->cb )
> >> > + list_add(&pt->list, &purged);
> >> > + else
> >> > + pt->on_list = 0;
> >> > }
> >> > else
> >> > {
> >> > @@ -283,6 +308,7 @@ int pt_update_irq(struct vcpu *v)
> >> > if ( earliest_pt == NULL )
> >> > {
> >> > spin_unlock(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.tm_lock);
> >> > + execute_callbacks(v, &purged);
> >>
> >> It would be better to check if the list is not empty before calling the
> >> function to avoid the extra lock / unlock.
> >
> > The lock is also protecting the 'purged' list, so I think that for
> > consistency the lock needs to be held before accessing it.
>
> But that's a local list, isn't it? No-one else can access it.
destroy_periodic_time can still remove items from this list, if a
timer that's on the 'purged' list is destroyed between added to the
list and executing the callback.
Roger.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |