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).
--
Sander
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
