Re: [PATCH v2 17/17] irq: remove handle_domain_{irq,nmi}()

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc: maz@kernel.org, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
	Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@nxp.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, deanbo422@gmail.com, green.hu@gmail.com,
	guoren@kernel.org, jonas@southpole.se, kernelfans@gmail.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
	nickhu@andestech.com, palmer@dabbelt.com,
	paul.walmsley@sifive.com, shorne@gmail.com,
	stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de,
	vgupta@kernel.org, vladimir.murzin@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 17/17] irq: remove handle_domain_{irq,nmi}()
Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 00:52:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a6bpov9u.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Ynpzb5L53iGex14D@FVFF77S0Q05N>

On Tue, May 10 2022 at 15:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 02:13:20PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>> For gpio-dln2.c, I believe it from inspection.
>> 
>> For smsc95xx.c, I'm actually seeing it go wrong in practice,
>> unedited dmesg splat is included below FWIW.
>
> Thanks; having the trace makes this much easier to analyse.

which confirmes what I talked about before:

>> WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 75 at kernel/irq/irqdesc.c:702 generic_handle_domain_irq+0x88/0x94
>>  generic_handle_domain_irq from smsc95xx_status+0x54/0xb0
>>  smsc95xx_status from intr_complete+0x80/0x84
>>  intr_complete from __usb_hcd_giveback_urb+0xa4/0x12c
>>  __usb_hcd_giveback_urb from usb_hcd_giveback_urb+0x118/0x11c
>>  usb_hcd_giveback_urb from completion_tasklet_func+0x7c/0xc8
>>  completion_tasklet_func from tasklet_callback+0x20/0x24
>>  tasklet_callback from tasklet_action_common.constprop.0+0x148/0x220
>>  tasklet_action_common.constprop.0 from tasklet_hi_action+0x28/0x30
>>  tasklet_hi_action from __do_softirq+0x154/0x3e8
>>  __do_softirq from __local_bh_enable_ip+0x12c/0x1a8
>>  __local_bh_enable_ip from irq_forced_thread_fn+0x7c/0xac
>>  irq_forced_thread_fn from irq_thread+0x16c/0x228
>>  irq_thread from kthread+0x100/0x140

So what happens here:

 interrupt
    -> wakeup threaded handler

 threaded handler runs
    local_bh_disable();
    ....
    schedules tasklet
    ...
    local_bh_enable()
      do_softirq()
        run_tasklet()
          urb_completion()
            smsc95xx_status()
              generic_handle_domain_irq()

That interrupt in question is an interrupt, which is not handled by the
primary CPU interrupt chips. It's a synthetic interrupt which is
generated from the received USB packet.

+	/* USB interrupts are received in softirq (tasklet) context.
+	 * Switch to hardirq context to make genirq code happy.
+	 */
+	local_irq_save(flags);
+	__irq_enter_raw();
+
 	if (intdata & INT_ENP_PHY_INT_)
-		;
+		generic_handle_domain_irq(pdata->irqdomain, PHY_HWIRQ);

This __irq_enter_raw() is really wrong. This is _not_ running in hard
interrupt context. Pretending so creates more problems than it
solves. It breaks context tracking, confuses lockdep ...

We also have demultiplexed interrupts which are nested in a threaded
interrupt handler and share the thread context. No, we are not going to
pretend that they run in hard interrupt context either.

So we need a clear distinction between interrupts which really happen in
hard interrupt context and those which are synthetic and can be invoked
from pretty much any context.

Anything else is just a recipe for disaster and endless supply of half
baken hacks.

Thanks,

        tglx

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel