From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Wesley Cheng <wcheng@codeaurora.org>,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
jackp@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] usb: dwc3: Stop active transfers before halting the controller
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:06:47 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mu1ecruw.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200924155005.GB1337044@rowland.harvard.edu>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1884 bytes --]
Hi,
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> writes:
>> > Hence, the reason if there was already a pending IRQ triggered, the
>> > dwc3_gadget_disable_irq() won't ensure the IRQ is handled. We can do
>> > something like:
>> > if (!is_on)
>> > dwc3_gadget_disable_irq()
>> > synchronize_irq()
>> > spin_lock_irqsave()
>> > if(!is_on) {
>> > ...
>> >
>> > But the logic to only apply this on the pullup removal case is a little
>> > messy. Also, from my understanding, the spin_lock_irqsave() will only
>> > disable the local CPU IRQs, but not the interrupt line on the GIC, which
>> > means other CPUs can handle it, unless we explicitly set the IRQ
>> > affinity to CPUX.
>>
>> Yeah, the way I understand this can't really happen. But I'm open to
>> being educated. Maybe Alan can explain if this is really possibility?
>
> It depends on the details of the hardware, but yes, it is possible in
> general for an interrupt handler to run after you have turned off the
> device's interrupt-request line. For example:
>
> CPU A CPU B
> --------------------------- ----------------------
> Gets an IRQ from the device
> Calls handler routine spin_lock_irq
> spin_lock_irq Turns off the IRQ line
> ...spins... spin_unlock_irq
> Rest of handler runs
> spin_unlock_irq
>
> That's why we have synchronize_irq(). The usual pattern is something
> like this:
>
> spin_lock_irq(&priv->lock);
> priv->disconnected = true;
> my_disable_irq(priv);
> spin_unlock_irq(&priv->lock);
> synchronize_irq(priv->irq);
>
> And of course this has to be done in a context that can sleep.
>
> Does this answer your question?
It does, thank you Alan. It seems like we don't need a call to
disable_irq(), only synchronize_irq() is enough, however it should be
called with spinlocks released, not held.
Thanks
--
balbi
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 857 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-25 6:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-03 21:09 [PATCH v3] usb: dwc3: Stop active transfers before halting the controller Wesley Cheng
2020-09-04 0:47 ` Thinh Nguyen
2020-09-07 6:20 ` Felipe Balbi
2020-09-08 21:42 ` Wesley Cheng
2020-09-24 7:39 ` Felipe Balbi
2020-09-24 15:50 ` Alan Stern
2020-09-25 6:06 ` Felipe Balbi [this message]
2020-09-25 19:33 ` Wesley Cheng
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=87mu1ecruw.fsf@kernel.org \
--to=balbi@kernel.org \
--cc=Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jackp@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=wcheng@codeaurora.org \
/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.