[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911041016070.12138@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:18:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: use spin_lock_irqsave in try_one_irq()
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > This happens because the &desc->lock is taken with spin_lock_irqsave and
> > just a spin_lock. In the try_one_irq(), this lock really should be a
> > spin_lock_irqsave().
> >
>
> Cc'ed Ingo and Thomas.
>
> The reason is that try_one_irq() is called both from hardirq context and softirq
> context. And by default the timer handler poll_all_shared_irqs() is
> called with irq enabled.
> Then the two usage will cause inconsistent.
>
> So I think the following patch is also workable to you.
Yes, that's sufficient.
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/spurious.c b/kernel/irq/spurious.c
> index 114e704..11affbc 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/spurious.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/spurious.c
> @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ static void poll_all_shared_irqs(void)
>
> for_each_irq_desc(i, desc) {
> unsigned int status;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> if (!i)
> continue;
> @@ -121,7 +122,9 @@ static void poll_all_shared_irqs(void)
> if (!(status & IRQ_SPURIOUS_DISABLED))
> continue;
>
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> try_one_irq(i, desc);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
You can even use local_irq_en/disable() here.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists