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

From: [email-masked] (Julien Grall)
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:27:30 +0100

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 <[email-masked]>
>>> ---
>>>  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.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall