On 11.03.20 10:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.03.2020 07:07, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 10.03.20 18:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 10.03.2020 08:28, Juergen Gross wrote:
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/pci_amd_iommu.c
@@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ static void amd_dump_p2m_table_level(struct page_info* pg,
int level,
struct amd_iommu_pte *pde = &table_vaddr[index];
if ( !(index % 2) )
- process_pending_softirqs();
+ process_pending_softirqs_norcu();
At the example of this - the property of holding an RCU lock is
entirely invisible here, as it's the generic
iommu_dump_p2m_table() which acquires it. This suggest to me that
going forward breaking this is going to be very likely. Couldn't
process_pending_softirqs() exclude RCU handling when finding
preempt_count() to return non-zero?
This can be done, but then the non-debug build would require to have
non-empty rcu lock functions.
I guess I don't understand - I see only one version of them:
#define rcu_read_lock(x) ({ ((void)(x)); preempt_disable(); })
#define rcu_read_unlock(x) ({ ((void)(x)); preempt_enable(); })
Same for the preempt count adjustment operations.
See patch 5.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
