From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [UNTESTED] KVM: do not call kvm_set_irq from irq disabled
 section
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:12:27 +0300
Message-ID: <20100421171227.GB10744@redhat.com>
References: <20100420155401.GA12982@amt.cnet>
 <201004211548.12824.sheng.yang@intel.com>
 <20100421155840.GA22052@amt.cnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "Yang, Sheng" <sheng.yang@intel.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"bonenkamp@gmx.de" <bonenkamp@gmx.de>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12269 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754245Ab0DURMb (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:12:31 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100421155840.GA22052@amt.cnet>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:58:41PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Or could we make kvm_set_irq() atomic? Though the code path is a little long 
> > for spinlock.
> 
> Yes, given the sleep-inside-RCU-protected section bug from
> kvm_notify_acked_irq, either that or convert IRQ locking to SRCU.
> 
> But as you said, the code paths are long and potentially slow, so
> probably SRCU is a better alternative.
> 
> Gleb?
kvm_set_irq() was converted to rcu from mutex to make msix interrupt
injection scalable.

--
			Gleb.