From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: daniel.thompson@linaro.org (Daniel Thompson)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:24:16 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v3 5/5] irqchip: gic: Add support for IPI FIQ
In-Reply-To: <20140908162316.GC12361@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1409931198-22600-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
 <1410190115-32604-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
 <1410190115-32604-6-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
 <20140908162316.GC12361@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Message-ID: <540EB930.6010404@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 08/09/14 17:23, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:28:35PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> @@ -604,8 +731,19 @@ static void gic_raise_softirq(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int irq)
>>  {
>>  	int cpu;
>>  	unsigned long flags, map = 0;
>> +	unsigned long softint;
>>  
>> -	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_controller_lock, flags);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The locking in this function ensures we don't use stale cpu mappings
>> +	 * and thus we never route an IPI to the wrong physical core during a
>> +	 * big.LITTLE switch. The switch code takes both of these locks meaning
>> +	 * we can choose whichever lock is safe to use from our current calling
>> +	 * context.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (in_nmi())
>> +		raw_spin_lock(&fiq_safe_migration_lock);
>> +	else
>> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_controller_lock, flags);
> 
> Firstly, why would gic_raise_softirq() be called in FIQ context?

Oops.

This code should have been removed. It *is* required for kgdb (which
needs to send FIQ to other processors via IPI and may itself be running
from FIQ) but it not needed for the currently targeted use case.


> Secondly,
> this doesn't save you.  If you were in the middle of gic_migrate_target()
> when the FIQ happened that (for some reason prompted you to call this),
> you would immediately deadlock trying to that this IRQ.

This cannot happen because gic_migrate_target() runs with FIQ disabled.


> I suggest not even trying to solve this "race" which I don't think is
> one which needs to even be considered (due to the first point.)

As mentioned above I believe it eventually needs to be addressed by some
means but it certainly doesn't belong in the current patchset.

I will remove it.