[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12582c31-9ff0-708c-5c85-1e31efd2a170@synopsys.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 13:45:06 -0700
From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To: Noam Camus <noamca@...lanox.com>,
<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>
CC: <noamikong@...il.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] ARC: Allow irq threading
+CC Peter, Tglx, Steven
On 06/15/2017 01:43 AM, Noam Camus wrote:
> From: Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>
>
> Working with NPS400 we noticed that there is a possibility of L1
> interrupt nesting that may run out kernel stack.
> The scenario include serving invoke_softirqs() from irq_exit()
> and once local_irq_enable() called can hit another one before we
> managed to restore last one and pop some place from kernel stack.
>
> Serving softirqs at dedicated kernel thread may mitigate this.
> We see that many architectures, including x86, behave like this.
>
> Note 1: All interrupts which must be non threaded
> should be marked IRQF_NO_THREAD.
> Note 2: using kernel param "threadirqs" is needed to actually
> turn this on. This configuration is only a preperation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>
> ---
> arch/arc/Kconfig | 1 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arc/Kconfig b/arch/arc/Kconfig
> index a545969..f464f97 100644
> --- a/arch/arc/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arc/Kconfig
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ config ARC
> select HAVE_OPROFILE
> select HAVE_PERF_EVENTS
> select HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ
> + select IRQ_FORCED_THREADING
> select IRQ_DOMAIN
> select MODULES_USE_ELF_RELA
> select NO_BOOTMEM>
As Noam notes above and looking at work needed in other arches prior to switching
to this: we need mark the low level ints as NO_THREAD.
ARC ipi, timer, perf interrupts happen to use request_percpu_irq() which doesn't
take flags and doesn't seem to force NO_THREAD internally either. Does that mean
we first need to convert all of these sites to __request_percpu_irq(.. NO_THREAD
...) or is there a better way of doing this !
Thx,
-Vineet
Powered by blists - more mailing lists