[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern

To: Alexander Gordeev <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern
From: Tejun Heo <>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:43:23 -0400
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>, Ben Hutchings <>,, Bjorn Helgaas <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Michael Ellerman <>, Martin Schwidefsky <>, Ingo Molnar <>, Dan Williams <>, Andy King <>, Jon Mason <>, Matt Porter <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Solarflare linux maintainers <>, "VMware, Inc." <>,
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ifdHpINxJRj1PJtzyLGWv1m6fdPwF6KPC7ogH4dJXxQ=; b=vrOoErSt7va8gWziu9rYAO602J0sZAxxM2tz0+Fd0qGR/TKy25fy4r8VsyPBEofpX0 PuRuyOhVu0zIhWXfynpe5V2ekg+8Is9j6YnDKBPkuWxUbwlkEqzde6Xpez3ATl7MRDSK 3XnpRfKvhMVLcIC8aSxC67xBNEJAotVN04qwIvAMCvVDLDCGsuwOgxJnXG5YqWqO000j rN06IVfR4QWAKVMnpUB9LUuR4maOQy20G6myvXzh9pBCkskaigucG5djYsaYAlyGBePe 2QR8Jvo4xDyn+1Bp5kHwv2JDGhvUrHWJYoHUDoaxTffsZZOLPzFG3FyDvhzKFepplJVQ E1hw==
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <1381009586.645.141.camel@pasglop> <> <1381040386.645.143.camel@pasglop> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 02:57:16PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 02:01:11PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hmmm... yean, the race condition could be an issue as multiple msi
> > allocation might fail even if the driver can and explicitly handle
> > multiple allocation if the quota gets reduced inbetween.
> BTW, should we care about the quota getting increased inbetween?
> That would entail.. kind of pci_get_msi_limit() :), but IMHO it is
> not worth it.

I think we shouldn't.  If the resource was low during a point in time
during allocation, it's fine to base the result on that - the resource
was actually low and which answer we return is just a question of
timing and both are correct.  The only reason the existing race
condition is problematic is because it may fail even if the resource
never falls below the failure point.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>