From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [for-xen-4.5 PATCH v2 2/2] dpci: Add ZOMBIE state to allow the softirq to finish with the dpci_pirq. Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 15:31:27 -0500 Message-ID: <20141120203127.GK31889@laptop.dumpdata.com> References: <1416435695-23784-1-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <1416435695-23784-3-git-send-email-konrad.wilk@oracle.com> <546DD6BF0200007800049471@smtp.nue.novell.com> <20141120195133.GE25423@laptop.dumpdata.com> <1131707258.20141120211830@eikelenboom.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1XrYOO-00019C-DJ for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:31:52 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1131707258.20141120211830@eikelenboom.it> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Sander Eikelenboom Cc: andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 09:18:30PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: > > Thursday, November 20, 2014, 8:51:33 PM, you wrote: > > > Ah crud. > > > So a simple fix could be to seperate the 'state' to only deal with the > > raise_softirq and softirq_dpci. And then add a new (old) 'masked' to > > deal between hvm_dirq_assist, pt_irq_guest_eoi and hvm_do_IRQ_dpci. > > > > From 94a98e20a8ab721a58788919f92e3524a6c6e25c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk > > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:28:11 -0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] dpci: Add 'masked' as an gate for hvm_dirq_assist to process. > > > commit f6dd295381f4b6a66acddacf46bca8940586c8d8 > > "dpci: replace tasklet with softirq" used the 'masked' as an > > two-bit state mechanism (STATE_SCHED, STATE_RUN) to communicate > > between 'raise_softirq_for' and 'dpci_softirq' to determine whether > > the 'struct hvm_pirq_dpci' can be re-scheduled. > > > > Hi Konrad, > > Is this patch supposed to replace both the previous ones ? Yes. > > -- > Sander >