On 23.01.2024 16:07, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:32:12PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.01.2024 20:43, Stewart Hildebrand wrote:
>>> @@ -2888,6 +2888,8 @@ int allocate_and_map_msi_pirq(struct domain *d, int
>>> index, int *pirq_p,
>>> {
>>> int irq, pirq, ret;
>>>
>>> + ASSERT(pcidevs_locked() || rw_is_locked(&d->pci_lock));
>>
>> If either lock is sufficient to hold here, ...
>>
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/physdev.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/physdev.c
>>> @@ -123,7 +123,9 @@ int physdev_map_pirq(domid_t domid, int type, int
>>> *index, int *pirq_p,
>>>
>>> case MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MSI:
>>> case MAP_PIRQ_TYPE_MULTI_MSI:
>>> + pcidevs_lock();
>>> ret = allocate_and_map_msi_pirq(d, *index, pirq_p, type, msi);
>>> + pcidevs_unlock();
>>> break;
>>
>
> IIRC (Stewart can further comment) this is done holding the pcidevs
> lock to keep the path unmodified, as there's no need to hold the
> per-domain rwlock.
Yet why would we prefer to acquire a global lock when a per-domain one
suffices?
Jan
