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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1612109 > unrolled thread

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

Started bySebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
First post2017-03-29 18:10 +0200
Last post2017-04-04 10:40 +0200
Articles 3 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-03-29 18:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-03-30 10:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic Lionel DEBIEVE <lionel.debieve@st.com> - 2017-04-04 10:40 +0200

#1612109 — Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic

FromSebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Date2017-03-29 18:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic
Message-ID<tqoky-T6-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 2017-03-22 09:05:58 [-0700], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:18:43 +0100
> Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@st.com> wrote:
> 
> > Use raw_spin_lock in enable/disable channel as it comes from
> > interrupt context.
> > 
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:995
> > in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 307, name: pulseaudio
> > Preemption disabled at:
> > [<c01790fc>] __handle_domain_irq+0x4c/0xec
> > CPU: 0 PID: 307 Comm: pulseaudio
> > Hardware name: STi SoC with Flattened Device Tree
> > [<c011046c>] (unwind_backtrace)
> > [<c010c7f4>] (show_stack)
> > [<c03d1578>] (dump_stack)
> > [<c014e440>] (___might_sleep)
> > [<c08e7f24>] (rt_spin_lock)
> > [<c069bb04>] (sti_mbox_disable_channel)
> > [<c069befc>] (sti_mbox_irq_handler)
> > [<c0179900>] (__handle_irq_event_percpu)
> > [<c01799dc>] (handle_irq_event_percpu)
> > [<c0179a78>] (handle_irq_event)
> > [<c017d1c8>] (handle_fasteoi_irq)
> > [<c0178c08>] (generic_handle_irq)
> > [<c017912c>] (__handle_domain_irq)
> > [<c0101488>] (gic_handle_irq)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@st.com>
> 
> Looks fine to me. Should this go to mainline?
> 
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

Could this be applied upstream, please? From looking at the thread there
was no reason not to do so.

> -- Steve
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c index 41bcd33..f9674ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct sti_mbox_device {
> >  	void __iomem		*base;
> >  	const char		*name;
> >  	u32			enabled[STI_MBOX_INST_MAX];
> > -	spinlock_t		lock;
> > +	raw_spinlock_t		lock;
> >  };
> >  
> >  /**
> > @@ -129,10 +129,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_enable_channel(struct
> > mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
> >  	void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> >  	mdev->enabled[instance] |= BIT(channel);
> >  	writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_SET_OFFSET);
> > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> > @@ -144,10 +144,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct
> > mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
> >  	void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> >  	mdev->enabled[instance] &= ~BIT(channel);
> >  	writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_CLR_OFFSET);
> > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void sti_mbox_clear_irq(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> > @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ static int sti_mbox_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev) mdev->dev		= &pdev->dev;
> >  	mdev->mbox		= mbox;
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
> >  
> >  	/* STi Mailbox does not have a Tx-Done or Tx-Ready IRQ */
> >  	mbox->txdone_irq	= false;

Sebastian

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1612687

FromLee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Date2017-03-30 10:00 +0200
Message-ID<tqD9V-2XU-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1612109
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> On 2017-03-22 09:05:58 [-0700], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:18:43 +0100
> > Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@st.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Use raw_spin_lock in enable/disable channel as it comes from
> > > interrupt context.
> > > 
> > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > > kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:995
> > > in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 307, name: pulseaudio
> > > Preemption disabled at:
> > > [<c01790fc>] __handle_domain_irq+0x4c/0xec
> > > CPU: 0 PID: 307 Comm: pulseaudio
> > > Hardware name: STi SoC with Flattened Device Tree
> > > [<c011046c>] (unwind_backtrace)
> > > [<c010c7f4>] (show_stack)
> > > [<c03d1578>] (dump_stack)
> > > [<c014e440>] (___might_sleep)
> > > [<c08e7f24>] (rt_spin_lock)
> > > [<c069bb04>] (sti_mbox_disable_channel)
> > > [<c069befc>] (sti_mbox_irq_handler)
> > > [<c0179900>] (__handle_irq_event_percpu)
> > > [<c01799dc>] (handle_irq_event_percpu)
> > > [<c0179a78>] (handle_irq_event)
> > > [<c017d1c8>] (handle_fasteoi_irq)
> > > [<c0178c08>] (generic_handle_irq)
> > > [<c017912c>] (__handle_domain_irq)
> > > [<c0101488>] (gic_handle_irq)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@st.com>
> > 
> > Looks fine to me. Should this go to mainline?
> > 
> > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> 
> Could this be applied upstream, please? From looking at the thread there
> was no reason not to do so.

Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>

> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c | 12 ++++++------
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > > b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c index 41bcd33..f9674ca 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct sti_mbox_device {
> > >  	void __iomem		*base;
> > >  	const char		*name;
> > >  	u32			enabled[STI_MBOX_INST_MAX];
> > > -	spinlock_t		lock;
> > > +	raw_spinlock_t		lock;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > > @@ -129,10 +129,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_enable_channel(struct
> > > mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
> > >  	void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
> > >  
> > > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > >  	mdev->enabled[instance] |= BIT(channel);
> > >  	writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_SET_OFFSET);
> > > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> > > @@ -144,10 +144,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct
> > > mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
> > >  	void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
> > >  
> > > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > >  	mdev->enabled[instance] &= ~BIT(channel);
> > >  	writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_CLR_OFFSET);
> > > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void sti_mbox_clear_irq(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> > > @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ static int sti_mbox_probe(struct platform_device
> > > *pdev) mdev->dev		= &pdev->dev;
> > >  	mdev->mbox		= mbox;
> > >  
> > > -	spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
> > > +	raw_spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
> > >  
> > >  	/* STi Mailbox does not have a Tx-Done or Tx-Ready IRQ */
> > >  	mbox->txdone_irq	= false;
> 
> Sebastian

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615790

FromLionel DEBIEVE <lionel.debieve@st.com>
Date2017-04-04 10:40 +0200
Message-ID<tssan-2oD-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1612687
Hi,

Looking at the thread discussion, except architecture discussion around the IRQF_ONESHOT, I think it could go to upstream too.

I'll re-upload patch for upstream.

Thanks for reviewing.

BR,

Lionel


On 03/30/2017 09:54 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
>> On 2017-03-22 09:05:58 [-0700], Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:18:43 +0100
>>> Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@st.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Use raw_spin_lock in enable/disable channel as it comes from
>>>> interrupt context.
>>>>
>>>> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
>>>> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:995
>>>> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 307, name: pulseaudio
>>>> Preemption disabled at:
>>>> [<c01790fc>] __handle_domain_irq+0x4c/0xec
>>>> CPU: 0 PID: 307 Comm: pulseaudio
>>>> Hardware name: STi SoC with Flattened Device Tree
>>>> [<c011046c>] (unwind_backtrace)
>>>> [<c010c7f4>] (show_stack)
>>>> [<c03d1578>] (dump_stack)
>>>> [<c014e440>] (___might_sleep)
>>>> [<c08e7f24>] (rt_spin_lock)
>>>> [<c069bb04>] (sti_mbox_disable_channel)
>>>> [<c069befc>] (sti_mbox_irq_handler)
>>>> [<c0179900>] (__handle_irq_event_percpu)
>>>> [<c01799dc>] (handle_irq_event_percpu)
>>>> [<c0179a78>] (handle_irq_event)
>>>> [<c017d1c8>] (handle_fasteoi_irq)
>>>> [<c0178c08>] (generic_handle_irq)
>>>> [<c017912c>] (__handle_domain_irq)
>>>> [<c0101488>] (gic_handle_irq)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@st.com>
>>> Looks fine to me. Should this go to mainline?
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>> Could this be applied upstream, please? From looking at the thread there
>> was no reason not to do so.
> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c | 12 ++++++------
>>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
>>>> b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c index 41bcd33..f9674ca 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
>>>> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct sti_mbox_device {
>>>>   	void __iomem		*base;
>>>>   	const char		*name;
>>>>   	u32			enabled[STI_MBOX_INST_MAX];
>>>> -	spinlock_t		lock;
>>>> +	raw_spinlock_t		lock;
>>>>   };
>>>>   
>>>>   /**
>>>> @@ -129,10 +129,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_enable_channel(struct
>>>> mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
>>>>   	void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
>>>>   
>>>> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
>>>> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
>>>>   	mdev->enabled[instance] |= BIT(channel);
>>>>   	writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_SET_OFFSET);
>>>> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
>>>> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
>>>>   }
>>>>   
>>>>   static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct mbox_chan *chan)
>>>> @@ -144,10 +144,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct
>>>> mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
>>>>   	void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
>>>>   
>>>> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
>>>> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
>>>>   	mdev->enabled[instance] &= ~BIT(channel);
>>>>   	writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_CLR_OFFSET);
>>>> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
>>>> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
>>>>   }
>>>>   
>>>>   static void sti_mbox_clear_irq(struct mbox_chan *chan)
>>>> @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ static int sti_mbox_probe(struct platform_device
>>>> *pdev) mdev->dev		= &pdev->dev;
>>>>   	mdev->mbox		= mbox;
>>>>   
>>>> -	spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
>>>> +	raw_spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
>>>>   
>>>>   	/* STi Mailbox does not have a Tx-Done or Tx-Ready IRQ */
>>>>   	mbox->txdone_irq	= false;
>> Sebastian

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web