[PATCH v2 3/3] xen/arm: don't try to re-register vcpu_info on cpu_hotplug.

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 19/10/15 11:10, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> Hi Stefano,
> >>
> >> On 16/10/15 17:35, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini at eu.citrix.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c |   10 ++++++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
> >>> index 6c09cc4..b193811 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c
> >>> @@ -93,6 +93,16 @@ static void xen_percpu_init(void)
> >>>  	int err;
> >>>  	int cpu = get_cpu();
> >>>  
> >>> +	/* 
> >>> +	 * VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info cannot be called twice for the same
> >>> +	 * vcpu, so if vcpu_info is already registered, just get out. This
> >>> +	 * can happen with cpu-hotplug.
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	if (per_cpu(xen_vcpu, cpu) != NULL) {
> >>> +		put_cpu();
> >>> +		return;
> >>> +	}
> >>
> >>
> >> Not really related to this patch. By side effect this patch is also not
> >> calling irq_percpu_enable.
> >>
> >> Looking around, all the caller of irq_percpu_enable will call
> >> irq_percpu_disable when the CPU is dying. Is there any side effect to
> >> not doing this?
> > 
> > Given that Xen won't inject any event irqs when a cpu is offline, I
> > don't think there are any side effects.
> 
> I'm not talking about the behavior of Xen when the vCPU is down but any
> side effect in Linux (i.e not re-enabling the IRQ or else).
> 
> All the other user of percpu IRQ is doing the call so there must be a
> reason to do it.
> 
> Looking more closely to the code, the GIC driver will reset the vCPU
> interface every time the vCPU is coming back online (see
> gic_secondary_init).
> 
> Resetting the vCPU interface means all the PPIs will be disabled (see
> gic_cpu_config). As the event channel IRQ is a PPI it won't be
> re-enabled and the vCPU will never receive event channel.
> 
> So you have to re-enable this interrupt unconditionally. At the same
> time, I'd like to see the irq_percpu_disable to match irq_percpu_enable
> as the other users do.


OK, I'll add a disable_percpu_irq call and an enable_percpu_irq call.