Re: [PATCH] x86/xen: remove unneeded preempt_disable() from xen_irq_enable()

[Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1597 bytes --]

On 21.09.21 09:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.09.2021 09:02, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/irq.c
>> @@ -57,24 +57,20 @@ asmlinkage __visible void xen_irq_enable(void)
>>   {
>>   	struct vcpu_info *vcpu;
>>   
>> -	/*
>> -	 * We may be preempted as soon as vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask is
>> -	 * cleared, so disable preemption to ensure we check for
>> -	 * events on the VCPU we are still running on.
>> -	 */
>> -	preempt_disable();
>> -
>>   	vcpu = this_cpu_read(xen_vcpu);
>>   	vcpu->evtchn_upcall_mask = 0;
>>   
>> -	/* Doesn't matter if we get preempted here, because any
>> -	   pending event will get dealt with anyway. */
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Now preemption could happen, but this is only possible if an event
>> +	 * was handled, so missing an event due to preemption is not
>> +	 * possible at all.
>> +	 * The worst possible case is to be preempted and then check events
>> +	 * pending on the old vcpu, but this is not problematic.
>> +	 */
> 
> I agree this isn't problematic from a functional perspective, but ...
> 
>>   	barrier(); /* unmask then check (avoid races) */
>>   	if (unlikely(vcpu->evtchn_upcall_pending))
>>   		xen_force_evtchn_callback();
> 
> ... is a stray call here cheaper than ...
> 
>> -
>> -	preempt_enable();
> 
> ... the preempt_{dis,en}able() pair?

The question is if a stray call in case of preemption (very unlikely)
is cheaper than the preempt_{dis|en}able() pair on each IRQ enabling.

I'm quite sure removing the preempt_*() calls will be a net benefit.


Juergen

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3135 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]