From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] __do_IRQ does not check IRQ_DISABLED when IRQ_PER_CPU
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:22:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071030152218.3bd5f6a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071030162657.GA21728@sgi.com>
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:26:57 -0500
Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com> wrote:
> [patch] __do_IRQ does not check IRQ_DISABLED when IRQ_PER_CPU is set
>
> In __do_IRQ(), the normal case is that IRQ_DISABLED is checked and if
> set the handler (handle_IRQ_event()) is not called.
>
> Earlier in __do_IRQ(), if IRQ_PER_CPU is set the code does not check
> IRQ_DISABLED and calls the handler even though IRQ_DISABLED is set.
> This behavior seems unintentional.
>
> One user encountering this behavior is the CPE handler (in
> arch/ia64/kernel/mca.c). When the CPE handler encounters too many
> CPEs (such as a solid single bit error), it sets up a polling timer
> and disables the CPE interrupt (to avoid excessive overhead logging
> the stream of single bit errors). disable_irq_nosync() is called
> which sets IRQ_DISABLED. The IRQ_PER_CPU flag was previously set
> (in ia64_mca_late_init()). The net result is the CPE handler gets
> called even though it is marked disabled.
>
> If the behavior of not checking IRQ_DISABLED when IRQ_PER_CPU is
> set is intentional, it would be worthy of a comment describing
> the intended behavior. disable_irq_nosync() does call chip->disable()
> to provide a chipset specifiec interface for disabling the interrupt,
> which avoids this issue when used.
>
> Comments???
>
It looks right to me.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> kernel/irq/handle.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linus/kernel/irq/handle.c
> =================================> --- linus.orig/kernel/irq/handle.c 2007-10-30 09:49:26.000000000 -0500
> +++ linus/kernel/irq/handle.c 2007-10-30 10:23:52.436719688 -0500
> @@ -178,9 +178,11 @@ fastcall unsigned int __do_IRQ(unsigned
> */
> if (desc->chip->ack)
> desc->chip->ack(irq);
> - action_ret = handle_IRQ_event(irq, desc->action);
> - if (!noirqdebug)
> - note_interrupt(irq, desc, action_ret);
> + if (likely(!(desc->status & IRQ_DISABLED))) {
> + action_ret = handle_IRQ_event(irq, desc->action);
> + if (!noirqdebug)
> + note_interrupt(irq, desc, action_ret);
> + }
> desc->chip->end(irq);
> return 1;
> }
Alas, I can't remember who wrote (and cares about) the IRQ_PER_CPU support.
Oh well.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] __do_IRQ does not check IRQ_DISABLED when IRQ_PER_CPU is set
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:22:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071030152218.3bd5f6a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071030162657.GA21728@sgi.com>
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:26:57 -0500
Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com> wrote:
> [patch] __do_IRQ does not check IRQ_DISABLED when IRQ_PER_CPU is set
>
> In __do_IRQ(), the normal case is that IRQ_DISABLED is checked and if
> set the handler (handle_IRQ_event()) is not called.
>
> Earlier in __do_IRQ(), if IRQ_PER_CPU is set the code does not check
> IRQ_DISABLED and calls the handler even though IRQ_DISABLED is set.
> This behavior seems unintentional.
>
> One user encountering this behavior is the CPE handler (in
> arch/ia64/kernel/mca.c). When the CPE handler encounters too many
> CPEs (such as a solid single bit error), it sets up a polling timer
> and disables the CPE interrupt (to avoid excessive overhead logging
> the stream of single bit errors). disable_irq_nosync() is called
> which sets IRQ_DISABLED. The IRQ_PER_CPU flag was previously set
> (in ia64_mca_late_init()). The net result is the CPE handler gets
> called even though it is marked disabled.
>
> If the behavior of not checking IRQ_DISABLED when IRQ_PER_CPU is
> set is intentional, it would be worthy of a comment describing
> the intended behavior. disable_irq_nosync() does call chip->disable()
> to provide a chipset specifiec interface for disabling the interrupt,
> which avoids this issue when used.
>
> Comments???
>
It looks right to me.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> kernel/irq/handle.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linus/kernel/irq/handle.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linus.orig/kernel/irq/handle.c 2007-10-30 09:49:26.000000000 -0500
> +++ linus/kernel/irq/handle.c 2007-10-30 10:23:52.436719688 -0500
> @@ -178,9 +178,11 @@ fastcall unsigned int __do_IRQ(unsigned
> */
> if (desc->chip->ack)
> desc->chip->ack(irq);
> - action_ret = handle_IRQ_event(irq, desc->action);
> - if (!noirqdebug)
> - note_interrupt(irq, desc, action_ret);
> + if (likely(!(desc->status & IRQ_DISABLED))) {
> + action_ret = handle_IRQ_event(irq, desc->action);
> + if (!noirqdebug)
> + note_interrupt(irq, desc, action_ret);
> + }
> desc->chip->end(irq);
> return 1;
> }
Alas, I can't remember who wrote (and cares about) the IRQ_PER_CPU support.
Oh well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-30 22:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-30 16:26 [patch] __do_IRQ does not check IRQ_DISABLED when IRQ_PER_CPU is set Russ Anderson
2007-10-30 16:26 ` Russ Anderson
2007-10-30 22:22 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-10-30 22:22 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-31 16:20 ` Luck, Tony
2007-10-31 16:20 ` Luck, Tony
2007-10-31 20:00 ` Russ Anderson
2007-10-31 20:00 ` Russ Anderson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071030152218.3bd5f6a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rja@sgi.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.