From: "Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@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 17:18:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e6b8fcc2-2e2c-60f8-e68c-972cc7951e6b@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b1171c0c-7928-d7a1-7bdc-e3f18f67eaac@suse.com>
On 04.11.19 16:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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?
No, you are right, this was a false interpretation of mine.
>
>>> 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."
For XenoLinux it makes at least a little bit sense, as interrupts
were enabled during calls of some handlers AFAIK. The complexity is
rather strange, though, as the bool would have been much easier to
understand.
I'll adapt the commit message.
Juergen
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-04 16:18 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
2019-11-04 16:18 ` Jürgen Groß [this message]
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=e6b8fcc2-2e2c-60f8-e68c-972cc7951e6b@suse.com \
--to=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=jbeulich@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®