On 08.02.21 13:16, Julien Grall wrote:

On 08/02/2021 12:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:

quoted

On 08.02.21 11:40, Julien Grall wrote:

quoted

Hi Juergen,

On 08/02/2021 10:22, Jürgen Groß wrote:

quoted

On 08.02.21 10:54, Julien Grall wrote:

quoted

... I don't really see how the difference matter here. The idea is 
to re-use what's already existing rather than trying to re-invent 
the wheel with an extra lock (or whatever we can come up).

The difference is that the race is occurring _before_ any IRQ is
involved. So I don't see how modification of IRQ handling would help.

Roughly our current IRQ handling flow (handle_eoi_irq()) looks like:

if ( irq in progress )
{
   set IRQS_PENDING
   return;
}

do
{
   clear IRQS_PENDING
   handle_irq()
} while (IRQS_PENDING is set)

IRQ handling flow like handle_fasteoi_irq() looks like:

if ( irq in progress )
   return;

handle_irq()

The latter flow would catch "spurious" interrupt and ignore them. So 
it would handle nicely the race when changing the event affinity.

Sure? Isn't "irq in progress" being reset way before our "lateeoi" is
issued, thus having the same problem again? 

Sorry I can't parse this.

handle_fasteoi_irq() will do nothing "if ( irq in progress )". When is
this condition being reset again in order to be able to process another
IRQ? I believe this will be the case before our "lateeoi" handling is
becoming active (more precise: when our IRQ handler is returning to
handle_fasteoi_irq()), resulting in the possibility of the same race we
are experiencing now.


Juergen