From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 5/6] evtchn: remove the locking when
 unmasking an event channel
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:36:58 +0100
Message-ID: <5582AD5A.3000007@citrix.com>
References: <1434542583-28073-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<1434542583-28073-6-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<5582C80B0200007800086948@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.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=6045ec3c1=david.vrabel@citrix.com>)
	id 1Z5Y80-00035w-Nn
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:37:11 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5582C80B0200007800086948@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>
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 18/06/15 12:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 17.06.15 at 14:03, <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/event_channel.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/event_channel.c
>> @@ -978,8 +978,6 @@ int evtchn_unmask(unsigned int port)
>>      struct domain *d = current->domain;
>>      struct evtchn *evtchn;
>>  
>> -    ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&d->event_lock));
>> -
>>      if ( unlikely(!port_is_valid(d, port)) )
>>          return -EINVAL;
>>  
>> @@ -1146,9 +1144,7 @@ long do_event_channel_op(int cmd, XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg)
>>          struct evtchn_unmask unmask;
>>          if ( copy_from_guest(&unmask, arg, 1) != 0 )
>>              return -EFAULT;
>> -        spin_lock(&current->domain->event_lock);
>>          rc = evtchn_unmask(unmask.port);
>> -        spin_unlock(&current->domain->event_lock);
> 
> And, looking particularly at evtchn_fifo_unmask() (and its descendant
> evtchn_fifo_set_pending()), you get away without acquiring the port
> lock in or around evtchn_port_unmask()? If indeed so, this one would
> again be independent on 1, 2, and 4, i.e. could go in together with 3.

Yes.  This is only dependent on #3 (simplify port_is_valid()).

David