On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:51:24PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>
> Friday, November 21, 2014, 12:50:16 PM, you wrote:
>
> > On November 21, 2014 2:51:33 AM EST, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 20.11.14 at 20:51, <konrad.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>> @@ -669,7 +670,7 @@ static void hvm_dirq_assist(struct domain *d,
> >>struct hvm_pirq_dpci *pirq_dpci)
> >>> ASSERT(d->arch.hvm_domain.irq.dpci);
> >>>
> >>> spin_lock(&d->event_lock);
> >>> - if ( pirq_dpci->state )
> >>> + if ( test_and_clear_bool(pirq_dpci->masked) )
> >>> {
> >>> struct pirq *pirq = dpci_pirq(pirq_dpci);
> >>> const struct dev_intx_gsi_link *digl;
> >>
> >>So this now guards solely against the timeout enforced EOI? Why do
> >>you no longer need to guard against cancellation (i.e. why isn't this
> >>looking at both ->state and ->masked)?
> >>
>
> > The previous state check was superfluous as the dpci_softirq would check
> > for the valid STATE_ before calling hvm_dirq_assist (and deal with
> > cancellation).
>
> > I actually had an cleanup patch that would have removed the 'if
> > (pirq_dpci->state) ' and move the code for Xen 4.6.
>
> > Anyhow waiting to see if Sander was able to test with this patch.
>
> >>Jan
>
> Hi Konrad / Jan,
>
> I have tested it for 3 hours now, no host crash so far (even after applying
> some
> extra stress to the guest).
Yeey! Thank you for being so flexible and willing to test these patches out!
>
> --
> Sander
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
