From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Fedin Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 12/16] KVM: arm64: handle pending bit for LPIs in ITS emulation Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:39:26 +0300 Message-ID: <004801d104e2$a6966850$f3c338f0$@samsung.com> References: <1444229726-31559-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1444229726-31559-13-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <016d01d104c1$47a41570$d6ec4050$@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <016d01d104c1$47a41570$d6ec4050$@samsung.com> Content-language: ru Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: 'Andre Przywara' , marc.zyngier@arm.com, christoffer.dall@linaro.org Cc: eric.auger@linaro.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hello! > Shouldn't we also have 'break' here? If vgic_queue_irq() returns false, this means we have no > more > LRs to use, therefore it makes no sense to keep iterating. No, don't listen to me. :) Because of piggyback, we indeed have to recheck all the interrupts. P.S. I still sometimes lose LPIs, and this is not related to spurious injection fix, because i tried to omit resetting irq_pending_on_cpu bit, and still lost some LPIs. Will try to compare with v2, because with v2 i don't remember this problem. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: p.fedin@samsung.com (Pavel Fedin) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:39:26 +0300 Subject: [PATCH v3 12/16] KVM: arm64: handle pending bit for LPIs in ITS emulation In-Reply-To: <016d01d104c1$47a41570$d6ec4050$@samsung.com> References: <1444229726-31559-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1444229726-31559-13-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <016d01d104c1$47a41570$d6ec4050$@samsung.com> Message-ID: <004801d104e2$a6966850$f3c338f0$@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello! > Shouldn't we also have 'break' here? If vgic_queue_irq() returns false, this means we have no > more > LRs to use, therefore it makes no sense to keep iterating. No, don't listen to me. :) Because of piggyback, we indeed have to recheck all the interrupts. P.S. I still sometimes lose LPIs, and this is not related to spurious injection fix, because i tried to omit resetting irq_pending_on_cpu bit, and still lost some LPIs. Will try to compare with v2, because with v2 i don't remember this problem. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia