linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm v4 6/9] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3efb10970801300221h601261edy33cf89dac5abde78@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:21:49 +0100
From:	"Remy Bohmer" <linux@...mer.net>
To:	"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
	michael <trimarchi@...dalf.sssup.it>
Cc:	fabio@...dalf.sssup.it, "Andrew Victor" <linux@...im.org.za>,
	"Chip Coldwell" <coldwell@...hat.com>,
	"Marc Pignat" <marc.pignat@...s.ch>,
	"David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm v4 6/9] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler

Hello Haavard (and Michael),

First I want to mention that I did not found the time yet to test your
latest integration of these atmel_serial patches, and I only know that
your set of the end of December works fine. I do not know the changes
you made since posting that set and your latest patch-set.

But let me clear some things up:
The original patchset I posted, existed of a set of patches suitable
for the mainline kernel, plus an additional patch for Preempt-RT only.
So, the splitup  of the interrupt handler was also needed for
Preempt-RT, but it was not the only patch that was needed on
preempt-rt.

Now looking at this problem:
> >  * Drop the lock here since it might end up calling
> >  * uart_start(), which takes the lock.
> >    spin_unlock(&port->lock);
> >  */
> >     tty_flip_buffer_push(port->info->tty);
> > /*
> >     spin_lock(&port->lock);
> >  */
> > The same code with this comments out runs

I expect the UART generating the problem is the DBGU port. The DBGU
shares its interrupt line with the timer interrupt with the IRQF_TIMER
flag set, and thus the DBGU interrupt handler is running in
IRQF_NODELAY context. Within this context it is forbidden to lock a
normal spinlock, because a normal spinlock is converted to a mutex on
Preempt-RT; a mutex can sleep which is forbidden in interrupt context.
So, to get around this problem, this lock spinlock has to be of the
raw_spinlock_t type. The raw_spinlock_t is the normal mainline-kernel
spinlock, and as such it is not converted to a mutex, and will
therefor never sleep.

Attached a patch that changes this spinlock type. I used it in my
patchset, but your updates of December last year do not need this
patch anymore, so apparantly you changed something that has a
regression on Preempt-RT...

> > Complete Preemption (Real-Time) ok but the serials is just unusable due
> > to too many overruns (just using lrz)

This problem is not there in the December-set either. It works like a charm...

I believe I have to look at the latest set of patches, and try to find
any regressions. Do you have a location somewhere where I can download
the latest versions? Or do I need to dig through LKML to find the
latest... ;-)

Kind Regards,

Remy



2008/1/30, Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:12:23 +0100
> michael <trimarchi@...dalf.sssup.it> wrote:
>
> > I'm testing this patch on an at91sam9260 on 2.6.24-rt. I'm using this
> > patch with the tclib support for hrtimer and the clocksource pit_clk.
> > These are the results:
> >
> > - Voluntary Kernel Preemption the system (crash)
> > - Preemptible  Kernel (crash)
>
> Ouch. I'm assuming this is with DMA disabled?
>
> > /*
> >  * Drop the lock here since it might end up calling
> >  * uart_start(), which takes the lock.
> >    spin_unlock(&port->lock);
> >  */
> >     tty_flip_buffer_push(port->info->tty);
> > /*
> >     spin_lock(&port->lock);
> >  */
> > The same code with this comments out runs
>
> Now, _that_ is strange. I can't see anything that needs protection
> across that call; in fact, I think we can lock a lot less than what we
> currently do.
>
> > Complete Preemption (Real-Time) ok but the serials is just unusable due
> > to too many overruns (just using lrz)
>
> Is it worse than before? IIRC Remy mentioned something about
> IRQF_NODELAY being the reason for moving all this code to softirq
> context in the first place; does the interrupt handler run in hardirq
> context?
>
> > The system is stable and doesn't crash reverting this patch.
> > I don't test with the thread hardirqs active.
>
> Ok.
>
> > >> +  ret = -ENOMEM;
> > >> +  data = kmalloc(ATMEL_SERIAL_RINGSIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
> > >> +  if (!data)
> > >> +          goto err_alloc_ring;
> > >> +  port->rx_ring.buf = data;
> > >> +
> > >>    ret = uart_add_one_port(&atmel_uart, &port->uart);
> > >>
> > Is the kmalloc correct?
> > maybe:
> > data = kmalloc(ATMEL_SERIAL_RINGSIZE * sizeof(struct atmel_uart_char),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
>
> I think you're right. Can you change it and see if it helps?
>
> I guess I didn't test it thoroughly enough with DMA
> disabled...slub_debug ought to catch such things, but not until we
> receive enough data to actually overflow the buffer.
>
> > >> @@ -1033,6 +1165,9 @@ static int __devexit atmel_serial_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >>
> > >>    ret = uart_remove_one_port(&atmel_uart, port);
> > >>
> > >> +  tasklet_kill(&atmel_port->tasklet);
> > >> +  kfree(atmel_port->rx_ring.buf);
> > >> +
> > >>
> > Why the tasklet_kill is not done in atmel_shutdown?
>
> Why should it be? If it should, we must move the call to tasklet_init
> into atmel_startup too, and I don't really see the point.
>
> Haavard
>

View attachment "atmel_serial_irqf_nodelay.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1134 bytes)