[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BCB48C05FCE8BC4D9E61E841ECBE6DB70FFB92@039-SN2MPN1-011.039d.mgd.msft.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 12:39:58 +0000
From: Liu Qiang-B32616 <B32616@...escale.com>
To: Dan Williams <djbw@...com>
CC: "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"vinod.koul@...el.com" <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Phillips Kim-R1AAHA <R1AAHA@...escale.com>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Li Yang-R58472 <r58472@...escale.com>,
Tabi Timur-B04825 <B04825@...escale.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 6/8] fsl-dma: use spin_lock_bh to instead of
spin_lock_irqsave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dan.j.williams@...il.com [mailto:dan.j.williams@...il.com] On
> Behalf Of Dan Williams
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 4:41 PM
> To: Liu Qiang-B32616
> Cc: linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; vinod.koul@...el.com; Phillips Kim-R1AAHA;
> herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au; davem@...emloft.net; arnd@...db.de;
> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; Li Yang-R58472; Tabi Timur-B04825
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/8] fsl-dma: use spin_lock_bh to instead of
> spin_lock_irqsave
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:23 AM, <qiang.liu@...escale.com> wrote:
> > From: Qiang Liu <qiang.liu@...escale.com>
> >
> > The use of spin_lock_irqsave() is a stronger locking mechanism than is
> > required throughout the driver. The minimum locking required should be
> > used instead. Interrupts will be turned off and context will be saved,
> > there is needless to use irqsave.
> >
> > Change all instances of spin_lock_irqsave() to spin_lock_bh().
> > All manipulation of protected fields is done using tasklet context or
> > weaker, which makes spin_lock_bh() the correct choice.
>
> It seems you are coordinating fsl-dma copy and talitos xor operations.
> It looks like fsl-dma will be called through
> talitos_process_pending()->dma_run_dependencies(), which is
> potentially called in hard irq context.
>
> This all comes back to the need to fix raid offload to manage the
> channels explicitly rather than the current dependency chains.
So you mean I must implement talitos_run_dependencies() and fsldma_run_dependencies()? Invoke async_tx->callback() respectively.
How about avoiding irq context in talitos?
>
> --
> Dan
--
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