From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Bader Subject: Re: [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:28:45 +0100 Message-ID: <4EC4E1DD.1030309@canonical.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Ian Jackson , Jan Beulich , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 17.11.2011 11:13, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 17/11/2011 09:57, "Stefan Bader" wrote: > >>>> This is due to a bad backport of c/s 24007:0526644ad2a6: In -unstable, >>>> evtchn_unmask() must be called with d->event_lock held, while in 4.1 >>>> the function acquires the lock (and now gets called with the lock already >>>> held from do_physdev_op()'s case PHYSDEVOP_eoi). The change dates >>>> back to 23573:584c2e5e03d9, which hardly is a candidate for backporting >>>> (but maybe the locking change needs to be pulled out of there). >>> >>> Interestingly, Ubuntu's 4.1 fix has exactly the same problem. >>> >> >> Hm, yes we should. I am pretty sure I hit that code path often enough, Wonder >> why I never saw any dead lock there... > > Perhaps your dom0 kernel doesn't register a pirq_eoi_map. > Would be the only explanation. And quite possible. Heck, I would need to know what that is used for anyway. :/ The kernel is 3.0 based the interrupt I was looking at just was a normal apic emulated through events one... -Stefan > -- Keir > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel