Hi Andrii,
On 7/30/19 6:35 PM, Andrii Anisov wrote:
On 26.07.19 13:48, Julien Grall wrote:
This is the 3rd time you send this patch... and still no proper
explanation why this is done nor the impact on keeping the interrupts
disabled longer than necessary.
I know it is the third time for this patch. Yet it is in the RFC series
again.
So? RFC does not mean you have to ignore previous comments... You could
have at least acknowledge my points...
In this series I think I need interrupts locked until I start time
accounting for hypervisor. Time accounting is started by `tacc_head()`
function. I prefer to have it called from C, because it is more
convenient and obvious for those who are less familiar with the ARM code.
Resending the patch without things addressed is only going to make it
worst.
I'm still convinced the patch would improve interrupt latency for high
interrupt rate use cases.
But I understand that I have no experiment to prove the effect, so I'm
not willing to push through the patch.
The only thing I ask is justification in your commit message rather than
throwing things and expecting the reviewer to understand why you do
that. I would recommend to refresh yourself how to submit a patch series
[1].
Also, I have a question to you about another aspect of this patch. In
the function `enter_hypervisor_head()` there is a check for a disabled
workaround and turning it on. If we have the interrupts enabled until
there, we have good chances to go through the interrupt processing
`do_IRQ()` before WA enabled. Is it still OK?
Hmmm, that's correct.
Cheers,
[1] https://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Submitting_Xen_Project_Patches
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
