* [PATCH 1/1] serial: mcf: Don't take spinlocks in already protected functions
@ 2010-06-09 7:56 ygeorgie
2010-06-14 19:12 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: ygeorgie @ 2010-06-09 7:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: Yury Georgievskiy
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.
Signed-off-by: Yury Georgievskiy <ygeorgie@gmail.com>
---
drivers/serial/mcf.c | 22 ++++++----------------
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/serial/mcf.c b/drivers/serial/mcf.c
index b5aaef9..6235444 100644
--- a/drivers/serial/mcf.c
+++ b/drivers/serial/mcf.c
@@ -70,16 +70,14 @@ static unsigned int mcf_tx_empty(struct uart_port *port)
static unsigned int mcf_get_mctrl(struct uart_port *port)
{
struct mcf_uart *pp = container_of(port, struct mcf_uart, port);
- unsigned long flags;
unsigned int sigs;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
sigs = (readb(port->membase + MCFUART_UIPR) & MCFUART_UIPR_CTS) ?
0 : TIOCM_CTS;
sigs |= (pp->sigs & TIOCM_RTS);
sigs |= (mcf_getppdcd(port->line) ? TIOCM_CD : 0);
sigs |= (mcf_getppdtr(port->line) ? TIOCM_DTR : 0);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
+
return sigs;
}
@@ -88,16 +86,13 @@ static unsigned int mcf_get_mctrl(struct uart_port *port)
static void mcf_set_mctrl(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int sigs)
{
struct mcf_uart *pp = container_of(port, struct mcf_uart, port);
- unsigned long flags;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
pp->sigs = sigs;
mcf_setppdtr(port->line, (sigs & TIOCM_DTR));
if (sigs & TIOCM_RTS)
writeb(MCFUART_UOP_RTS, port->membase + MCFUART_UOP1);
else
writeb(MCFUART_UOP_RTS, port->membase + MCFUART_UOP0);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
}
/****************************************************************************/
@@ -105,12 +100,9 @@ static void mcf_set_mctrl(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int sigs)
static void mcf_start_tx(struct uart_port *port)
{
struct mcf_uart *pp = container_of(port, struct mcf_uart, port);
- unsigned long flags;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
pp->imr |= MCFUART_UIR_TXREADY;
writeb(pp->imr, port->membase + MCFUART_UIMR);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
}
/****************************************************************************/
@@ -118,12 +110,9 @@ static void mcf_start_tx(struct uart_port *port)
static void mcf_stop_tx(struct uart_port *port)
{
struct mcf_uart *pp = container_of(port, struct mcf_uart, port);
- unsigned long flags;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
pp->imr &= ~MCFUART_UIR_TXREADY;
writeb(pp->imr, port->membase + MCFUART_UIMR);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
}
/****************************************************************************/
@@ -131,12 +120,9 @@ static void mcf_stop_tx(struct uart_port *port)
static void mcf_stop_rx(struct uart_port *port)
{
struct mcf_uart *pp = container_of(port, struct mcf_uart, port);
- unsigned long flags;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
pp->imr &= ~MCFUART_UIR_RXREADY;
writeb(pp->imr, port->membase + MCFUART_UIMR);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
}
/****************************************************************************/
@@ -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);
}
/****************************************************************************/
--
1.7.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] serial: mcf: Don't take spinlocks in already protected functions
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
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2010-06-14 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ygeorgie; +Cc: linux-kernel
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?
> @@ -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?
--- 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;
}
/****************************************************************************/
_
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/1] serial: mcf: Don't take spinlocks in already protected functions
2010-06-14 19:12 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2010-06-14 20:20 ` Yury Georgievskiy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Yury Georgievskiy @ 2010-06-14 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: linux-kernel
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;
> }
>
> /****************************************************************************/
> _
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-06-14 20:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
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 is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox