[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080701144353.7285805d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:43:53 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: avorontsov@...mvista.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: 8250: fix shared interrupts issues with SMP and
RT kernels
> > again, please let the -rt maintainers sort out which patches need to be
> > propagated to upstream maintainers.
>
> This appears to be not only RT issue though. In theory, this can be
Agreed - RT is showing up a real bug here.
> triggered on SMP also. Thanks to Daniel Walker for pointing this out.
It looks correct to me except that you cannot use spin_lock/disable_irq
in that way safely. You must always disable_irq before taking the lock,
or prove it is safe and use disable_irq_nosync
The reason:
CPU#0 spin_lock_... [taken]
CPU#1 IRQ
CPU#1 spin_lock [waits]
CPU#0 disable_irq (deadlock)
Note that is also not generally safe to do
disable IRQ on device
spin_lock
disable_irq
because IRQ propogation occurs asynchronously to PCI bus traffic even on
PC class systems (especially Pentium-PII era boxes with SMP). You can
disable the device IRQ and still have an IRQ 'in flight' that arrives
afterwards.
So the fix needs some reworking in its ordering I think
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists