[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86d0v4x75x.wl-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:15:22 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
<linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: let pci_request_irq properly deal with threaded interrupts
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:36:57 +0100,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
> > [+cc Thomas, Christoph, LKML]
>
> + Marc
>
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:03:42AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> > > If we have a threaded interrupt with the handler being NULL, then
> > > request_threaded_irq() -> __setup_irq() will complain and bail out
> > > if the IRQF_ONESHOT flag isn't set. Therefore check for the handler
> > > being NULL and set IRQF_ONESHOT in this case.
> > >
> > > This change is needed to migrate the mei_me driver to
> > > pci_alloc_irq_vectors() and pci_request_irq().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
> >
> > I'd like an ack from Thomas because this requirement about IRQF_ONESHOT
> > usage isn't mentioned in the request_threaded_irq() function doc or
> > Documentation/
>
> Right. The documentation really needs some love and care. :(
>
> Yes, request for pure threaded interrupts are rejected if the oneshot flag
> is not set. The reason is that this would be deadly especially with level
> triggered interrupts because the primary default handler just wakes the
> thread and then reenables interrupts, which will make the interrupt come
> back immediately and the thread won't have a chance to actually shut it up
> in the device.
>
> That made me look into that code again and I found that we added a flag for
> irq chips to tell the core that the interrupt is one shot safe, i.e. that
> it can be requested w/o IRQF_ONESHOT. That was initially added to optimize
> MSI based interrupts which are oneshot safe by implementation.
>
> dc9b229a58dc ("genirq: Allow irq chips to mark themself oneshot safe")
>
> The original patch added that flag to the x86 MSI irqchip code, but that
> part was not applied for reasons which slipped from memory. It might be
> worthwhile to revisit that in order to avoid the mask/unmask overhead for
> such cases.
Yup, that would actually be beneficial to a range of interrupt
controllers (only an obscure GPIO driver makes use of this flag).
We could also consider extending this to support interrupt
hierarchies, as __setup_irq() seems only concerned with the top of the
stack (an IRQ provided by a generic MSI stack and backed by an irqchip
providing IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE would go unnoticed).
M.
--
Jazz is not dead, it just smell funny.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists