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  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]
Date:	Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:43:02 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <>
To:	David Brownell <>
cc:	Andrew Morton <>,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs (was: ...)

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> That seems to presume a hardirq-to-taskirq handoff.  But the
> problem case is taskirq-to-taskirq chaining, through e.g.
> what set_irq_chip_and_handler() provided.  (Details not very
> amenable to brief emails, just UTSL.)
> Thing is, I'm not sure a per-IRQ thread can work easily with
> that chaining.  The chained IRQs can need to be handled before
> the top-level IRQ gets re-enabled.  That's why the twl4030-irq
> code uses just one taskirq thread for all incoming events.

This can be solved by a completion as well.
> (Which of course is rarely more than one at a time, so there's
> little reason not to share that task between the demuxing code
> and the events being demuxed.  Interrupts that need processing
> via I2C/SPI/etc are more or less by definition not frequent or
> performance-critical.)

Then all we need to provide in the generic code is a function which
does not go through the handle_IRQ_event() logic and calls the action
handler directly. Not rocket science to do that and better than using
a facility which is designed to run in hardirq context and expect that
it works in thread context without complaints.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists