From: Yury Georgievskiy <ygeorgie@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] serial: mcf: Don't take spinlocks in already protected functions
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:20:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100614202030.GA10318@gce.cern.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100614121225.a03c9203.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:56:26 +0200
> ygeorgie@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > From: Yury Georgievskiy <ygeorgie@gmail.com>
> >
> > Don't take the port spinlock in uart functions where the serial core
> > already takes care of locking/unlocking them.
> >
> > The code would actually lock up on architectures where spinlocks are
> > implemented.
> >
> > Also protect calling mcf_rx_chars/mcf_tx_chars in the
> > interrupt handler by the port spinlock and use IRQ_RETVAL
> > to return from isr.
> >
>
> Thanks. Did you runtime test this?
Unfortunately not.
I spotted it as I am now writing the UART driver for Philips SCC2698B integrated circuit
and was looking for serial drivers examples.
And also came across d8d721f4c005f9a69bd1b5d5c6ba99b7e1d464de commit that has patched a
similar problem.
>
> > @@ -368,11 +354,15 @@ static irqreturn_t mcf_interrupt(int irq, void *data)
> > unsigned int isr;
> >
> > isr = readb(port->membase + MCFUART_UISR) & pp->imr;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&port->lock);
> > if (isr & MCFUART_UIR_RXREADY)
> > mcf_rx_chars(pp);
> > if (isr & MCFUART_UIR_TXREADY)
> > mcf_tx_chars(pp);
> > - return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > + spin_unlock(&port->lock);
> > +
> > + return IRQ_RETVAL(isr);
> > }
>
> I think this is a little abusive of IRQ_RETVAL. If there are some bits
> set in `isr' other than MCFUART_UIR_RXREADY and MCFUART_UIR_TXREADY, we
> claim we handled it, only we didn't.
>
> Probably the code works OK, but it all seems a bit uncomfortable.
> Perhaps make it more explicit?
>
Fair enough.
The code looks more relevant.
>
> --- a/drivers/serial/mcf.c~serial-mcf-dont-take-spinlocks-in-already-protected-functions-fix
> +++ a/drivers/serial/mcf.c
> @@ -352,17 +352,22 @@ static irqreturn_t mcf_interrupt(int irq
> struct uart_port *port = data;
> struct mcf_uart *pp = container_of(port, struct mcf_uart, port);
> unsigned int isr;
> + irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_NONE;
>
> isr = readb(port->membase + MCFUART_UISR) & pp->imr;
>
> spin_lock(&port->lock);
> - if (isr & MCFUART_UIR_RXREADY)
> + if (isr & MCFUART_UIR_RXREADY) {
> mcf_rx_chars(pp);
> - if (isr & MCFUART_UIR_TXREADY)
> + ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
> + }
> + if (isr & MCFUART_UIR_TXREADY) {
> mcf_tx_chars(pp);
> + ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
> + }
> spin_unlock(&port->lock);
>
> - return IRQ_RETVAL(isr);
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /****************************************************************************/
> _
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-14 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-09 7:56 [PATCH 1/1] serial: mcf: Don't take spinlocks in already protected functions ygeorgie
2010-06-14 19:12 ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-14 20:20 ` Yury Georgievskiy [this message]
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=20100614202030.GA10318@gce.cern.ch \
--to=ygeorgie@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox