[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080710110225.0dd636cf@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:02:25 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@...i.com>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@...e.de" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"hjk@...utronix.de" <hjk@...utronix.de>,
"lethal@...ux-sh.org" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uio: uio_pdrv_genirq V2
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:30:36 +0200
Uwe Kleine-König <Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@...i.com> wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > > + else if (!irq_on && !priv->irq_disabled)
> > > > + disable_irq(dev_info->irq);
> > > I'm not sure if this is a problem on SMP. Should you use
> > > disable_irq_nosync here, too? Probably it's OK.
> >
> > That one will also deadlock.
> Can you explain why? I think irqcontrol is only called in task context.
> I only see one possible deadlock and that's disable_irq being called
> while the irq is IRQ_INPROGRESS on the same cpu. I'm always willing to
> learn.
CPU0 (UIO IRQ) CPU1 (irqcontrol)
take IRQ
take spin lock
spin on spinlock
disable_irq (blocks)
> I think I didn't understand you right here, with the lock this can
> happen, too, doesn't it?
Actually yes - so it would simplify it without changing behaviour.
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