On Tue, Sep 14 2021 at 13:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:36:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Here you rely on the UNLOCK+LOCK pattern because we have two adjacent
> critical sections (or rather, the same twice), which provides RCtso
> ordering, which is sufficient to
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:36:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> That's the real problem and for that your barrier is at the wrong place
> because you want to make sure that those stores are visible before the
> store to intx_soft_enabled becomes visible, i.e. this should be:
>
>
> /*
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:36:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
> As the device startup is not really happening often it's sensible to do
> the following
>
> disable_irq();
> vp_dev->intx_soft_enabled = true;
> enable_irq();
>
> because:
>
> disable_irq()
在 2021/9/14 上午5:36, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
Jason,
On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 13:53, Jason Wang wrote:
This patch tries to make sure the virtio interrupt handler for INTX
won't be called after a reset and before virtio_device_ready(). We
can't use IRQF_NO_AUTOEN since we're using shared interrupt
On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 18:01, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:36:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >From the interrupt perspective the sequence:
>>
>> disable_irq();
>> vp_dev->intx_soft_enabled = true;
>> enable_irq();
>>
>> is perfectly fine
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:36:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >From the interrupt perspective the sequence:
>
> disable_irq();
> vp_dev->intx_soft_enabled = true;
> enable_irq();
>
> is perfectly fine as well. Any interrupt arriving during the disabled
> section will
Jason,
On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 13:53, Jason Wang wrote:
> This patch tries to make sure the virtio interrupt handler for INTX
> won't be called after a reset and before virtio_device_ready(). We
> can't use IRQF_NO_AUTOEN since we're using shared interrupt
> (IRQF_SHARED). So this patch tracks the
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 3:02 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 02:45:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:41 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 02:36:54PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:33 PM
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 02:45:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:41 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 02:36:54PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:33 PM Michael S. Tsirkin
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:41 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 02:36:54PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:33 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 01:53:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > This patch tries to make sure
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 02:36:54PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:33 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 01:53:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > This patch tries to make sure the virtio interrupt handler for INTX
> > > won't be called after a reset
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:33 PM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 01:53:51PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > This patch tries to make sure the virtio interrupt handler for INTX
> > won't be called after a reset and before virtio_device_ready(). We
> > can't use IRQF_NO_AUTOEN
This patch tries to make sure the virtio interrupt handler for INTX
won't be called after a reset and before virtio_device_ready(). We
can't use IRQF_NO_AUTOEN since we're using shared interrupt
(IRQF_SHARED). So this patch tracks the INTX enabling status in a new
intx_soft_enabled variable and
13 matches
Mail list logo
