On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
> > I am fairly confident it is not that simple after having thought about
> > this issue over the last few days. But I've been wrong in the past.
> > Propose a patch and I will review it for races/correctness, if you
> > like. Perhaps a combination of that plus your asymmetrical locking
> > scheme would work. One of the challenges you will hit is avoiding ABBA
> > between your "get" lock and the wqh, but good luck!
>
> A patch for what? The eventfd patch is a one-liner.
> It seems hard to believe that the thing cannot be handled on your side.
> Once the wake_up_locked() is turned into a wake_up(), what other races are
> there?
AFAICS, the IRQfd code simply registers the callback to ->poll() and waits
for two events.
In the POLLIN event, you schedule_work(&irqfd->inject) and there are no
races there AFAICS (you basically do not care of anything eventfd memory
related at all).
For POLLHUP, you do:
spin_lock(irqfd->slock);
if (irqfd->wqh)
schedule_work(&irqfd->inject);
irqfd->wqh = NULL;
spin_unlock(irqfd->slock);
In your work function you notice the POLLHUP condition and take proper
action (dunno what it is in your case).
In your kvm_irqfd_release() function:
spin_lock(irqfd->slock);
if (irqfd->wqh)
remove_wait_queue(irqfd->wqh, &irqfd->wait);
irqfd->wqh = NULL;
spin_unlock(irqfd->slock);
Any races in there?
- Davide
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
