Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1607322

Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Lionel DEBIEVE wrote:

> On 03/22/2017 07:47 PM, Julia Cartwright wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:30:12PM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> >> On 03/22/2017 01:01 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:37:59 -0500
> >>> Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Which kernel were you testing on, here?  From what I can tell, this
> >>>> should have been fixed with Thomas's commit:
> >>>>
> >>>>     2a1d3ab8986d ("genirq: Handle force threading of irqs with primary
> >>>> and thread handler")
> >>> Thanks Julia for looking into this. I just looked at the code, and saw
> >>> that it does very little with the lock held, and was fine with the
> >>> conversion. But if that interrupt handler should be in a thread, we
> >>> should see if that's the issue first.
> >>
> >> It will not be threaded because there are IRQF_ONESHOT used.
> >>
> >> 	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, irq,
> >> 					sti_mbox_irq_handler,
> >> 					sti_mbox_thread_handler,
> >> 					IRQF_ONESHOT, mdev->name, mdev);
> > Indeed.  I had skipped over this important detail when I was skimming
> > through the code.
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying!
> >
> > Is IRQF_ONESHOT really necessary for this device?  The primary handler
> > invokes sti_mbox_disable_channel() on the interrupting channel, which I
> > would hope would acquiesce the pending interrupt at the device-level?

Not sure.  This part of the code is remanent from when I re-wrote it.

What is the alternative?

NB: What does 'acquiesce' mean in this context?  Is that a typo?

> > Also, as written there are num_inst reads of STI_IRQ_VAL_OFFSET in the
> > primary handler, which seems inefficient...(unless of course reading
> > incurs side effects, here).

Inefficient in what respect?

> First to reply Julia, test was made using 4.9.y kernel branch.
> For the IRQF_ONESHOT, I rely on Lee (adding in mail thread) that was at the device driver origin.
> 
> Steven, you're also right as the patch can be also pushed in mainline too.
> 
> Lionel
> 

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@st.com> - 2017-03-22 16:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-03-22 17:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Lionel DEBIEVE <lionel.debieve@st.com> - 2017-03-22 18:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com> - 2017-03-22 18:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-03-22 19:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2017-03-22 19:40 +0100
        Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com> - 2017-03-22 19:50 +0100
          Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Lionel DEBIEVE <lionel.debieve@st.com> - 2017-03-23 09:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-03-23 11:30 +0100
              Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com> - 2017-03-23 22:00 +0100
          Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-24 09:40 +0100

csiph-web