[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111219100217.GA29889@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:02:17 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
Cc: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rowand, Frank" <Frank_Rowand@...yusa.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PREEMPT_RT_FULL: ARM context switch needs IRQs enabled
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:23:30PM +0000, frank.rowand@...sony.com wrote:
> On 12/16/11 03:01, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:20:45AM +0000, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> ARMv6 and later have VIPT caches and the TLBs are tagged with an ASID
> >> (application specific ID). The number of ASIDs is limited to 256 and
> >> the allocation algorithm requires IPIs when all the ASIDs have been
> >> used. The IPIs require interrupts enabled during context switch for
> >> deadlock avoidance.
> >>
> >> The RT patch mm-protect-activate-switch-mm.patch disables irqs around
> >> activate_mm() and switch_mm(), which are the portion of the ARMv6
> >> context switch that require interrupts enabled.
> >>
> >> The solution for the ARMv6 processors could be to _not_ disable irqs.
> >> A more conservative solution is to provide the same environment that
> >> the scheduler provides, that is preempt_disable(). This is more
> >> resilient for possible future changes to the ARM context switch code
> >> that is not aware of the RT patches.
> >>
> >> This patch will conflict slightly with Catalin's patch set to remove
> >> __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW, when that is accepted:
> >>
> >> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.3/01893.html
> >>
> >> When Catalin's patch set is accepted, this RT patch will need to reverse
> >> the change in patch 6 to arch/arm/include/asm/system.h:
> >>
> >> -#ifndef CONFIG_CPU_HAS_ASID
> >> -#define __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW
> >> -#endif
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
> >
> > The whole point of my patches was to no longer define
> > __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW on ARM, so bringing it back in is not
> > feasible.
>
> Looking over Catalin's patches again, it looks like my hacky RT patch
> will no longer be needed after Catalin's patch set is in place. The
> problem my patch deals with is that with the RT patches applied, use_mm()
> calls switch_mm() with IRQs disabled. The current ARM switch_mm() can
> not be called with IRQs disabled. But with Catalin's patch 4
> (http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1111.3/01898.html)
> applied, switch_mm() can be called with IRQs enabled, because
> switch_mm() no longer calls check_context() which calls __new_context()
> which calls smp_call_function() which requires IRQs to be enabled....
I don't think much has changed with my patches. The switch_mm() itself
can be called with IRQs disabled but it wouldn't even do the pgd switch
unless it is followed by a finish_arch_post_lock_switch() call (hook
introduced by my patch, but only available in sched.c).
I think you need a solution for the RT series without considering my
context switch changes. As I understand, the RT code currently calls
switch_mm() with interrupts disabled which is not supported on ARM. So
we have two solutions:
1. Change the RT patches to call switch_mm() with interrupts enabled
(and I can modify the ARM code to cope with this scenario and do the
pgd switch in one go).
2. Call switch_mm() with interrupts disabled but invoke an arch hook
once the interrupts have been enabled to complete the pgd switch.
Option 1 is the only one that would work with the current ARM
switch_mm() implementation and I think it's the simplest (but I don't
know the background to the IRQs being disabled by the RT patches for the
switch_mm() call).
--
Catalin
--
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