mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/events: remove event handling recursion detection
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:19:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b1171c0c-7928-d7a1-7bdc-e3f18f67eaac@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <acaf58cb-47f2-7e7e-f25d-ff83ae8a8066@suse.com>

On 04.11.2019 16:09, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 04.11.19 15:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 04.11.2019 14:58, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> __xen_evtchn_do_upcall() contains guards against being called
>>> recursively. This mechanism was introduced in the early pvops times
>>> (kernel 2.6.26) when there were still Xen versions around not honoring
>>> disabled interrupts for sending events to pv guests.
>>>
>>> This was changed in Xen 3.0, which is much older than any Xen version
>>> supported by the kernel, so the recursion detection can be removed.
>>
>> Would you mind pointing out which exact change(s) this was(were)?
> 
> Linux kernel: 229664bee6126e01f8662976a5fe2e79813b77c8
> Xen: d8263e8dbaf5ef1445bee0662143a0fcb6d43466

Are you sure about the latter, touching only header files underneath
xen/, and there mostly public interface ones?

>> It had always been my understanding that the recursion detection
>> was mainly to guard against drivers re-enabling interrupts
>> transiently in their handlers (which in turn may no longer be an
>> issue in modern Linux kernels).
> 
> This would have been doable with a simple bool. The more complex
> xchg based logic was IMO for recursion detection at any point.

Well, the respective XenoLinux c/s 13098 has no mention of this, i.e.
it simply leaves open what the actual reason was:

"[LINUX] Disallow nested event delivery.

 This eliminates the risk of overflowing the kernel stack and is a
 reasonable policy given that we have no concept of priorities among
 event sources."

Jan

  reply	other threads:[~2019-11-04 15:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-04 13:58 Juergen Gross
2019-11-04 14:35 ` [Xen-devel] " Jan Beulich
2019-11-04 15:09   ` Jürgen Groß
2019-11-04 15:19     ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2019-11-04 16:18       ` Jürgen Groß

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=b1171c0c-7928-d7a1-7bdc-e3f18f67eaac@suse.com \
    --to=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®