[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1fd8b9cd-b525-315b-6b4a-23f5f8732676@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:52:32 -0500
From: Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vikram Sethi <vsethi@...dia.com>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] genirq: Use hlist for managing resend handlers
On 4/10/23 05:05, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2023 13:00:27 +0100,
> Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> @@ -30,18 +31,17 @@ static DECLARE_BITMAP(irqs_resend, IRQ_BITMAP_BITS);
>>>> static void resend_irqs(struct tasklet_struct *unused)
>>>> {
>>>> struct irq_desc *desc;
>>>> - int irq;
>>>> -
>>>> - while (!bitmap_empty(irqs_resend, nr_irqs)) {
>>>> - irq = find_first_bit(irqs_resend, nr_irqs);
>>>> - clear_bit(irq, irqs_resend);
>>>> - desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
>>>> - if (!desc)
>>>> - continue;
>>>> - local_irq_disable();
>>>> +
>>>> + raw_spin_lock_irq(&irq_resend_lock);
>>>> + while (!hlist_empty(&irq_resend_list)) {
>>>> + desc = hlist_entry(irq_resend_list.first, struct irq_desc,
>>>> + resend_node);
>>>> + hlist_del_init(&desc->resend_node);
>>>> + raw_spin_unlock(&irq_resend_lock);
>>>> desc->handle_irq(desc);
>>>> - local_irq_enable();
>>>> + raw_spin_lock(&irq_resend_lock);
>>>
>>> What makes it safe to drop the local_irq_*able()?
>>>
>>> tasklet_action_common() explicitly enables interrupts when calling the
>>> callback, so unless there is some other interrupt disabling that I
>>> can't immediately spot, the handler may run in the wrong context.
>>>
>>
>> Unless I am overlooking something, interrupts are disabled within the while
>> loop unless desc->handle_irq() is enabling it. The existing code disables
>> and enables interrupts for each handler invocation, whereas the modified
>> code does it only once for all outstanding handlers.
>
> Ah, you use raw_spinlock_irq() outside of the loop. I somehow glanced
> over that, apologies for the noise. Unless we expect a really long
> list of interrupts to be resent, your current code should be OK.
>
Thanks, I'll post v3 patches to address the other review comments.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists