[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220728133056.3lsrlxkc2lhtwhih@skbuf>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 13:30:57 +0000
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Z.Q. Hou" <zhiqiang.hou@....com>, Biwen Li <biwen.li@....com>,
Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] irqchip/ls-extirq: fix invalid wait context by
avoiding to use regmap
Hello Marc,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 08:44:58AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 17:09:15 +0100,
> Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> wrote:
> >
> > The irqchip->irq_set_type method is called by __irq_set_trigger() under
> > the desc->lock raw spinlock.
> >
> > The ls-extirq implementation, ls_extirq_irq_set_type(), uses an MMIO
> > regmap created by of_syscon_register(), which uses plain spinlocks
> > (the kind that are sleepable on RT).
> >
> > Therefore, this is an invalid locking scheme for which we get a kernel
> > splat stating just that ("[ BUG: Invalid wait context ]"), because the
> > context in which the plain spinlock may sleep is atomic due to the raw
> > spinlock. We need to go raw spinlocks all the way.
>
> Interesting you say that...
> > - regmap_update_bits(priv->syscon, priv->intpcr, mask, value);
> > +
> > + intpcr = priv->read(priv->intpcr);
> > + intpcr &= ~mask;
> > + intpcr |= value;
> > + priv->write(priv->intpcr, intpcr);
>
> Which really begs a few questions:
>
> - Where is the locking gone? Sure, the warning is gone. But the driver
> is now broken for *all* configurations, and not only RT. Result!
Correct, I had assumed that calls to irq_chip :: irq_set_type() are
implicitly serialized with respect to each other by means of the irq
descriptor's desc->lock, but clearly that is only true for a single
interrupt line. So I'll add back a lock that keeps the rmw atomic.
> - Is it *really* worth it to have 4 dumb helpers that bring nothing in
> terms of abstraction, and two indirections for something that could
> equally be expressed with a conditional?
Probably not, but it was a choice no worse than going through regmap's
own indirection. I'll try to come up with something that avoids function
pointers.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists