From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/5] evtchn: use a per-event channel lock
 for sending events
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:19:15 +0100
Message-ID: <55803E73.2010603@citrix.com>
References: <1434383299-21833-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<1434383299-21833-4-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<5580060502000078000855A9@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=6029d0107=david.vrabel@citrix.com>)
	id 1Z4t1S-0002ee-OL
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:43:34 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5580060502000078000855A9@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 16/06/15 10:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 15.06.15 at 17:48, <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>> @@ -1163,11 +1213,15 @@ int alloc_unbound_xen_event_channel(
>>      if ( rc )
>>          goto out;
>>  
>> +    spin_lock(&chn->lock);
>> +
>>      chn->state = ECS_UNBOUND;
>>      chn->xen_consumer = get_xen_consumer(notification_fn);
>>      chn->notify_vcpu_id = lvcpu;
>>      chn->u.unbound.remote_domid = remote_domid;
>>  
>> +    spin_unlock(&chn->lock);
>> +
>>   out:
>>      spin_unlock(&ld->event_lock);
> 
> I don't see why you shouldn't be able to move up this unlock.

Because we need to (also) hold ld->event_lock while changing the state
from ECS_FREE or a concurrent get_free_port() will find this port again.

>> @@ -1221,6 +1277,8 @@ void notify_via_xen_event_channel(struct domain *ld, int lport)
>>          evtchn_port_set_pending(rd, rchn->notify_vcpu_id, rchn);
>>      }
>>  
>> +    spin_unlock(&lchn->lock);
>> +
>>      spin_unlock(&ld->event_lock);
>>  }
> 
> Again I think the event lock can be dropped earlier now.

Ditto.

David