From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ARM v8 1/4] mini-os: arm: time
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:34:39 +0000
Message-ID: <1414406079.31057.6.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1412328051-20015-1-git-send-email-talex5@gmail.com>
	<1412328051-20015-2-git-send-email-talex5@gmail.com>
	<1413888616.23337.22.camel@citrix.com>
	<CAG4opy_ntDYAnN2m-YBvzfPX3CWiHFYZ-tx+u-e=vygntayy9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1XihdM-000470-EL
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 10:34:44 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAG4opy_ntDYAnN2m-YBvzfPX3CWiHFYZ-tx+u-e=vygntayy9Q@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Thomas Leonard <talex5@gmail.com>
Cc: David Scott <Dave.Scott@eu.citrix.com>, Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>, "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 09:51 +0000, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> On 21 October 2014 11:50, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 10:20 +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> >> Based on an initial patch by Karim Raslan.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Karim Allah Ahmed <karim.allah.ahmed@gmail.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Leonard <talex5@gmail.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> >
> >> +/* Wall-clock time is not currently available on ARM, so this is always zero for now:
> >> + * http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/Xen_ARM_TODO#Expose_Wallclock_time_to_guests
> >
> > I have some slightly hacky patches for this, I really should dust them
> > off and submit them...
> >
> >> +void block_domain(s_time_t until)
> >> +{
> >> +    uint64_t until_count = ns_to_ticks(until) + cntvct_at_init;
> >> +    ASSERT(irqs_disabled());
> >> +    if (read_virtual_count() < until_count)
> >> +    {
> >> +        set_vtimer_compare(until_count);
> >> +        __asm__ __volatile__("wfi");
> >> +        unset_vtimer_compare();
> >> +
> >> +        /* Give the IRQ handler a chance to handle whatever woke us up. */
> >> +        local_irq_enable();
> >> +        local_irq_disable();
> >> +    }
> >
> > Just wondering, is this not roughly equivalent to a wfi loop with
> > interrupts enabled?
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean.
> 
> If we enable interrupts before the wfi then I think the following could occur:
> 
> 1. Application checks for work, finds none and calls block_domain.
> 2. block_domain enables interrupts.
> 3. An interrupt occurs.
> 4. The interrupt handler sets a flag indicating work to do.
> 5. wfi is called, putting the domain to sleep, even though there is work to do.
> 
> Enabling IRQs after block_domain ensures we can't sleep while we have
> work to do.

Ah, yes.

Ian.