[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877d73n3eq.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2022 21:24:45 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: Thomas Pfaff <tpfaff@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irq/core: synchronize irq_thread startup
On Tue, May 03 2022 at 00:01, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2022 16:28:56 +0200 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> --- upstream/kernel/irq/manage.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> @@ -1258,6 +1258,7 @@ static int irq_thread(void *data)
> struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(action->irq);
> irqreturn_t (*handler_fn)(struct irq_desc *desc,
> struct irqaction *action);
> + bool waked = false;
>
> sched_set_fifo(current);
>
> @@ -1282,8 +1283,11 @@ static int irq_thread(void *data)
> irq_wake_secondary(desc, action);
>
> wake_threads_waitq(desc);
> + waked = true;
> }
>
> + if (!waked)
> + wake_threads_waitq(desc);
That's a guarantee to make desc->threads_active go negative in the case
that the thread was never woken by a hard interrupt handler. IOW, you
created a new problem which did not exist before.
The problem discussed here is not a problem in irq_thread(), it's a
problem of not reaching this function in the first place. See the on
point analysis in Thomas Pfaffs patch.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists