Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1340498
| From | Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC |
| Date | 2016-02-23 11:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r5ioa-3Vb-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r3N34-13P-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <r5dHQ-Cg-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <r5hV8-3st-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
>> What I actually meant was is it OK for irq_work_queue_on() to be called locally >> (is this a sched bug/optimization(. Further if it is OK to be called, does it need >> to do behave more like irq_work_queue() i.e. call arch_irq_work_raise() or >> arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() is expected to handle sending IPI to self ! > > Right, so I'm not actually sure we started out with this requirement. > But you're not the first to run into this, see: > > lkml.kernel.org/r/CAJZ5v0gLankSuziQq25qTCyNqeOX43yD9jnJu_XXwbdyajfmKg@mail.gmail.com Thx for the link, very helpful. I've posted fix for ARC which uses software interrupt and is thus UP/SMP safe. > Initially I think irq_work_queue_on() was only used remotely, but I > think it makes sense to allow the current cpu, esp. since people seem to > be using it like that. > > Now the distinct difference between arch_irq_work_raise() and > arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() is that arch_irq_work_raise() > should be NMI-safe. Ok - so when I implement interrupt priorities (aka NMI for ARC), this needs to be highest. > > So on x86 it has to be extra careful about the lapic state, whereas the > regular IPI code doesn't. > > I seem to have forgotten the status of NMIs on ARC, but this is > something to make a note of. Not had a chance to go back to it since we last discussed. I've just been swamped with bug fixing like this one :-( Thx, -Vineet
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2016-02-19 07:50 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2016-02-23 06:30 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-23 11:00 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2016-02-23 11:30 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-23 11:50 +0100
RE: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Noam Camus <noamca@mellanox.com> - 2016-02-23 13:40 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2016-02-24 05:50 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2016-02-24 06:00 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-25 15:10 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2016-02-25 15:30 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> - 2016-02-25 15:40 +0100
Re: Interesting csd deadlock on ARC Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> - 2016-02-25 17:00 +0100
csiph-web