linux-kernel - Re: [RFT][PATCH v1] ACPI: OSL: Use a threaded interrupt handler for SCI

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 14:28:27 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michal Wilczynski <michal.wilczynski@...el.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH v1] ACPI: OSL: Use a threaded interrupt handler for SCI

Hi Mika,
Hi Mario,

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:39 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:57:43PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >
> > In the current arrangement, all of the acpi_ev_sci_xrupt_handler() code
> > is run as an interrupt handler for the SCI, in interrupt context.  Among
> > other things, this causes it to run with local interrupts off which
> > can be problematic if many GPEs are enabled and they are located in the
> > I/O address space, for example (because in that case local interrupts
> > will be off for the duration of all of the GPE hardware accesses carried
> > out while handling an SCI combined and that may be quite a bit of time
> > in extreme scenarios).
> >
> > However, there is no particular reason why the code in question really
> > needs to run in interrupt context and in particular, it has no specific
> > reason to run with local interrupts off.  The only real requirement is
> > to prevent multiple instences of it from running in parallel with each
> > other, but that can be achieved regardless.
> >
> > For this reason, use request_threaded_irq() instead of request_irq() for
> > the ACPI SCI and pass IRQF_ONESHOT to it in flags to indicate that the
> > interrupt needs to be masked while its handling thread is running so as
> > to prevent it from re-triggering while it is being handled (and in
> > particular until the final handled/not handled outcome is determined).
> >
> > While at it, drop a redundant local variable from acpi_irq().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > ---
> >
> > The code inspection and (necessarily limited) testing carried out by me
> > are good indications that this should just always work, but there may
> > be still some really odd platform configurations I'm overlooking, so if
> > you have a way to give it a go, please do so.
>
> Tried this on ADL-S and ADL-P systems that I have here and both work
> just fine with the patch applied. I can see SCI interrupt count
> increases in /proc/interrupts as expected. Did a couple of s2idle cycles
> too, all good.
>
> Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>

Thanks for your replies and tags!

Given the lack of response from anyone else I'm going to move this
towards linux-next with 6.8 as the target.

Thank you!