On 08.02.21 11:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 06.02.2021 11:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
@@ -1798,6 +1818,29 @@ static void mask_ack_dynirq(struct irq_data *data) ack_dynirq(data); } +static void lateeoi_ack_dynirq(struct irq_data *data) +{
- struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(data->irq);
- evtchn_port_t evtchn = info ? info->evtchn : 0;
- if (VALID_EVTCHN(evtchn)) {
info->eoi_pending = true;mask_evtchn(evtchn);- }
+}
+static void lateeoi_mask_ack_dynirq(struct irq_data *data) +{
- struct irq_info *info = info_for_irq(data->irq);
- evtchn_port_t evtchn = info ? info->evtchn : 0;
- if (VALID_EVTCHN(evtchn)) {
info->masked = true;info->eoi_pending = true;mask_evtchn(evtchn);- }
+}
- static int retrigger_dynirq(struct irq_data *data) { evtchn_port_t evtchn = evtchn_from_irq(data->irq);
@@ -2023,8 +2066,8 @@ static struct irq_chip xen_lateeoi_chip __read_mostly = { .irq_mask = disable_dynirq, .irq_unmask = enable_dynirq,
- .irq_ack = mask_ack_dynirq,
- .irq_mask_ack = mask_ack_dynirq,
- .irq_ack = lateeoi_ack_dynirq,
- .irq_mask_ack = lateeoi_mask_ack_dynirq,
.irq_set_affinity = set_affinity_irq, .irq_retrigger = retrigger_dynirq,
Unlike the prior handler the two new ones don't call ack_dynirq() anymore, and the description doesn't give a hint towards this difference. As a consequence, clear_evtchn() also doesn't get called anymore - patch 3 adds the calls, but claims an older commit to have been at fault. _If_ ack_dynirq() indeed isn't to be called here, shouldn't the clear_evtchn() calls get added right here?
There was clearly too much time between writing this patch and looking at its performance impact. :-(
Somehow I managed to overlook that I just introduced the bug here. This OTOH explains why there are not tons of complaints with the current implementation. :-)
Will merge patch 3 into this one.
Juergen