From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 619F5C433E7 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D27221D7B for ; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Zuihh8nB" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730756AbgJNAuf (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:50:35 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:57795 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726974AbgJNAue (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:50:34 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1602636632; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Kfmf77NswTlE78r/Rx1pWvh7Mse6dTExyPAMh1Ho+z8=; b=Zuihh8nB1RbnZyUHjbOh6r+IdGrQh+oAYDrfz2bTQgrfNzpUFy5pf3+YAlKmVL+2xWuRxw viu2WYb+B/1P4wvTGARd9XSFZiNM20nnBEy0kDY+WC6Hmoe+K6ggoyaH0AM7/GtS6e/BU0 /QBBMGb0FUBiZBw8f+VNhu1NkQY3yZY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-542-0Yys-8R6Pzu35lIbEX78lQ-1; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:50:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 0Yys-8R6Pzu35lIbEX78lQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD93F1800D42; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:50:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from x1.home (ovpn-113-35.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.35]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0774155767; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:50:23 -0600 From: Alex Williamson To: "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" Cc: "tiantao (H)" , "eric.auger@redhat.com" , "cohuck@redhat.com" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Linuxarm Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio/platform: Replace spin_lock_irqsave by spin_lock in hard IRQ Message-ID: <20201013185023.455a6ca9@x1.home> In-Reply-To: References: <1602554458-26927-1-git-send-email-tiantao6@hisilicon.com> <20201013153229.7fe74e65@w520.home> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:15:13 +0000 "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Williamson [mailto:alex.williamson@redhat.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 10:32 AM > > To: tiantao (H) > > Cc: eric.auger@redhat.com; cohuck@redhat.com; kvm@vger.kernel.org; > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) > > ; Linuxarm > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio/platform: Replace spin_lock_irqsave by spin_lock in > > hard IRQ > > > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 10:00:58 +0800 > > Tian Tao wrote: > > > > > It is redundant to do irqsave and irqrestore in hardIRQ context. > > > > But this function is also called from non-IRQ context. Thanks, > > It seems you mean > vfio_platform_set_irqs_ioctl() -> > vfio_platform_set_irq_trigger -> > handler() ? Yes. > so, will it be better to move the irqsave out of the vfio_automasked_irq_handler() > and put it to where the function is called in non-IRQ context? > > I mean: > > irqhandler() > { > spin_lock() //without irqsave > spin_unlock() > } > > Non-irq context which is calling this handler: > irqsave(); > irqhandler(); > irqrestore(); > > Anyway, if it is called in IRQ context, it is redundant to do irqsave. What's the advantage? You're saying it's redundant, is it also wrong? If it's not wrong and only redundant, what's the tangible latency difference in maintaining a separate IRQ context handler without the irqsave/restore? Thanks, Alex > > > Signed-off-by: Tian Tao > > > --- > > > drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c | 5 ++--- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c > > b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c > > > index c5b09ec..24fd6c5 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform_irq.c > > > @@ -139,10 +139,9 @@ static int vfio_platform_set_irq_unmask(struct > > vfio_platform_device *vdev, > > > static irqreturn_t vfio_automasked_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id) > > > { > > > struct vfio_platform_irq *irq_ctx = dev_id; > > > - unsigned long flags; > > > int ret = IRQ_NONE; > > > > > > - spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_ctx->lock, flags); > > > + spin_lock(&irq_ctx->lock); > > > > > > if (!irq_ctx->masked) { > > > ret = IRQ_HANDLED; > > > @@ -152,7 +151,7 @@ static irqreturn_t vfio_automasked_irq_handler(int > > irq, void *dev_id) > > > irq_ctx->masked = true; > > > } > > > > > > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_ctx->lock, flags); > > > + spin_unlock(&irq_ctx->lock); > > > > > > if (ret == IRQ_HANDLED) > > > eventfd_signal(irq_ctx->trigger, 1); > > Thanks > Barry >