This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] CPUIDLE: Avoid remnant LAPIC timerintr while

To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] CPUIDLE: Avoid remnant LAPIC timerintr while force hpetbroadcast
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:06:55 +0100
Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:07:51 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <D470B4E54465E3469E2ABBC5AFAC390F024D97B0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AckSVfqaFjPrXqrARTKdgjxn6iTeJQA2DOERAAhrdiAAKqlasQAAe3QgAACEQPQ=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] CPUIDLE: Avoid remnant LAPIC timerintr while force hpetbroadcast
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 11/9/08 11:59, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Also, in your patch, you unmask LVTT after reprogramming the
>> LAPIC counter.
>> Isn't there a race where the LAPIC timer generates an
>> interrupt event before
>> you unmask the LVTT and hence you lose the interrupt (since I
>> assume the
>> LAPIC interrupt is basically an internal one-shot signal which
>> does not get
>> latched in any way)? So you'd probably need to reprogram_timer(0), then
>> enable the timer, then reprogram_timer(<actual value>).
> You're correct. It will be fixed.

Thanks. I'm not sure whether the reprogram_timer(0) before re-enabling is
really required. It looks like Linux doesn't do similar (although if course
it does re-programming after re-enabling to avoid the above race).

I suppose repogram_timer(0) is cheap so you might choose to do it anyway.
It's up to you...

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list