Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable

[Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>]

Matt Mackall wrote:
> I don't know that you need an xchg there. If you're still on the same
> CPU, it should all be nice and causal even across an interrupt handler.
> So it could be:
>
>    pda.intr_mask = 0; /* intr_pending can't get set after this */
>   

Why not?  Oh, I see.  intr_mask is inverted form of EFLAGS_IF.

>    if (unlikely(pda.intr_pending)) {
>       pda.intr_pending = 0;
>       asm("sti");
>    }
>
> (This would actually need a C barrier, but I'll ignore that as this'd
> end up being asm...)
>
> But other interesting things could happen. If we never did a real CLI
> and we get preempted and switched to another CPU between clearing
> intr_mask and checking intr_pending, we get a little confused. 
>   

I think Jeremy's idea was to have interrupt handlers leave interrupts 
disabled on exit if pda.intr_mask was set.  In which case, they would 
bypass all work and we could never get preempted.  I don't think leaving 
hardware interrupts disabled for such a long time is good though.

> But perhaps that doesn't matter because we'd by definition have no
> pending interrupts on either processor?
>
> Is it expensive to do an STI if interrupts are already enabled?
>   

Yes.

Zach