[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141024195029.GE19377@localhost>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 21:50:29 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: remove redundant irq disable at halt and restart
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:42:50PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:28:45PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:21:11PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:16:27PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:06:32PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > > Remove redundant local_irq_disable() at machine halt and restart.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since commit 44424c34049f ("ARM: 7803/1: Fix deadlock scenario with
> > > > > smp_send_stop()") interrupts are disabled before stopping secondary
> > > > > CPUs.
> > > >
> > > > Assuming this is correct, you should have:
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 44424c3 (ARM: 7803/1: Fix deadlock scenario with smp_send_stop())
> > > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v3.12+
> >
> > It's not a bug. Just a redundant disabling of already disabled
> > interrupts, something which could possibly lead someone to believe that
> > interrupts could be re-enabled by the power-off handler.
I meant re-enabled by arm_pm_restart().
> I didn't dig any of this out but I'll assume you did :-) So I withdraw
> my comment ;-)
>
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > > > > index a35f6ebbd2c2..5663ab57cf07 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
> > > > > @@ -195,7 +195,6 @@ void machine_halt(void)
> > > > > local_irq_disable();
> > > > > smp_send_stop();
> > > > >
> > > > > - local_irq_disable();
> > > > > while (1);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -237,7 +236,6 @@ void machine_restart(char *cmd)
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Whoops - the platform was unable to reboot. Tell the user! */
> > > > > printk("Reboot failed -- System halted\n");
> > > > > - local_irq_disable();
> > > >
> > > > ... but wouldn't this reintroduce the the buck which that commit fixed ?
> > >
> > > s/buck/bug :-) my fingers have a mind of their own, aparently.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > No, the interrupts would still be disabled.
>
> alright... so far I couldn't find where IRQs are disable before
> machine_power_off() is called. Starting a do_poweroff(), couldn't find
> it... Oh well, I'll keep digging.
It's done a few lines above in the same function. ;)
void machine_restart(char *cmd)
{
local_irq_disable();
^^^
smp_send_stop();
arm_pm_restart(reboot_mode, cmd);
/* Give a grace period for failure to restart of 1s */
mdelay(1000);
/* Whoops - the platform was unable to reboot. Tell the user! */
printk("Reboot failed -- System halted\n");
local_irq_disable();
while (1);
}
[ and similarly in machine_power_off(). ]
Johan
--
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