From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 862AAB7BA3
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:40:22 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/ppc64: Use preempt_schedule_irq instead of
	preempt_schedule
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Valentine <vbarshak@ru.mvista.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AE8B761.3090902@ru.mvista.com>
References: <20091019182858.GA10495@ru.mvista.com>
	<1256601324.2076.49.camel@pasglop> <1256622077.11607.85.camel@pasglop>
	<4AE89936.6080803@ru.mvista.com> <1256761844.26770.2.camel@pasglop>
	<4AE8B761.3090902@ru.mvista.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:37:14 +1100
Message-ID: <1256765834.26770.6.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: olof@lixom.net, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 00:28 +0300, Valentine wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 22:19 +0300, Valentine wrote:
> > 
> >> I'm just not sure that we need to clear HARDIRQEN here, since we don't 
> >> really hard-disable the the interrupts.
> > 
> > We do, or rather, we come in with the interrupts hard disabled, no ?
> 
> Yes, looks like the interrupts are disabled at this point (before 
> preempt_schedule_irq) most of the times, but we don't hard-disable them 
> here. We just soft-disable them to make preempt_schedule_irq happy. Even 
> if an interrupt fires, it will be hard-disabled and the hardirq flag 
> will be cleared by the exception handler right away. I just think that 
> there's no need to clear hardirq flag if we don't clear MSR_EE.

My point is that MSR_EE _is_ already clear... isn't it ? So either we
set it back, or we clear HARDIRQEN to reflect it. It will be re-enable
as soon as preempt_schedule_irq() calls local_irq_enable() which is soon
enough anyways.

Also that avoids perf interrupt sneaking in since those act as NMIs in
that regard and -will- get in even when soft disabled.

Cheers,
Ben.

> Thanks,
> Val.
> > 
> > Ben.
> > 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Val.
> >>
> >>> +	TRACE_DISABLE_INTS
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* Call the scheduler with soft IRQs off */
> >>> +1:	bl	.preempt_schedule_irq
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* Hard-disable interrupts again (and update PACA) */
> >>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E
> >>> -	wrteei	1
> >>> -	bl	.preempt_schedule
> >>>  	wrteei	0
> >>>  #else
> >>> -	ori	r10,r10,MSR_EE
> >>> -	mtmsrd	r10,1		/* reenable interrupts */
> >>> -	bl	.preempt_schedule
> >>>  	mfmsr	r10
> >>> -	clrrdi	r9,r1,THREAD_SHIFT
> >>> -	rldicl	r10,r10,48,1	/* disable interrupts again */
> >>> +	rldicl	r10,r10,48,1
> >>>  	rotldi	r10,r10,16
> >>>  	mtmsrd	r10,1
> >>>  #endif /* CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E */
> >>> +	li	r0,0
> >>> +	stb	r0,PACAHARDIRQEN(r13)
> >>> +
> >>> +	/* Re-test flags and eventually loop */
> >>> +	clrrdi	r9,r1,THREAD_SHIFT
> >>>  	ld	r4,TI_FLAGS(r9)
> >>>  	andi.	r0,r4,_TIF_NEED_RESCHED
> >>>  	bne	1b
> >>>  	b	restore
> >>>  
> >>>  user_work:
> >>> -#endif
> >>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PREEMPT */
> >>> +
> >>>  	/* Enable interrupts */
> >>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E
> >>>  	wrteei	1
> > 
> >