From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753330Ab1HILh1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:37:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12016 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753254Ab1HILh0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2011 07:37:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:37:43 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: "Hans J. Koch" Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Chris Wright , Jesse Barnes , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Anthony Foiani , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] uio/gen-pci: don't enable interrupts in ISR Message-ID: <20110809113743.GA32299@redhat.com> References: <20110804204606.GA19724@linutronix.de> <20110804210413.GA29222@redhat.com> <20110805001507.GA5987@local> <20110808062431.GB5182@redhat.com> <20110808171931.GB867@local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110808171931.GB867@local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 07:19:31PM +0200, Hans J. Koch wrote: > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 09:24:31AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 02:15:07AM +0200, Hans J. Koch wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 12:04:13AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:46:06PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > > As reported by Anthony in a short way: > > > > > > > > > > |irq 17 handler uio_interrupt+0x0/0x68 enabled interrupts > > > > > |NIP [c0069d84] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x260/0x26c > > > > > > > > > > The problem here is that spin_unlock_irq() enables the interrupts which > > > > > is a no-no in interrupt context because they always run with interrupts > > > > > disabled. This is the case even if IRQF_DISABLED has not been specified > > > > > since v2.6.35. Therefore this patch uses simple spin_locks(). > > > > > > > > > > Looking at it further here is only one spot where the lock is hold. So > > > > > giving the fact that an ISR is not reentrant and is not executed on two > > > > > cpus at the same time why do we need a lock here? > > > > > > > > I'm not sure anymore. I think the idea was to use > > > > it for synchronization down the road somehow, > > > > but it never materialized. Let's drop that lock completely. > > > > > > That sounds reasonable. > > Should I hack up a patch to remove the lock, or do you have anything in your > pipeline? Please do. > > > > > > > > > > > > The driver lacks of ->irqcontrol function so I guess the interrupt is > > > > > enabled via direct PCI-access in userland. > > > > > > > > Through sysfs. > > > > > > How? With /sys/devices/pci.../enable ? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Hans > > > > No. By writing to the command register using > > /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../config > > Hope that works at all times... > Anyway, the spin_lock in uio_pci_generic.c definetly doesn't help. > > Thanks, > Hans True.