public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [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