[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b45e79b-84a6-4935-adce-cc8b0d0dd7ea@ibv-augsburg.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:12:50 +0200
From: Dominic Rath <dominic.rath@...-augsburg.net>
To: Andrew Davis <afd@...com>, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>, Nick Saulnier <nsaulnier@...com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] OMAP mailbox FIFO removal
On 13.06.2024 14:22, Andrew Davis wrote:
>> We looked into this some time ago, and noticed that the IRQ approach
>> caused problems in the virtio/rpmsg code. I'd like to understand if
>> your change was for the same reason, or something else we missed before.
>>
>
> It is most likely the same reason. Seems despite its name,
> rproc_vq_interrupt() cannot
> be called from an IRQ/atomic context. As the following backtrace shows,
> that function
> calls down into functions which are not IRQ safe. So we needed to keep
> it threaded:
Thanks for confirming. This is exactly what we've been seeing.
Regards,
Dominic
Powered by blists - more mailing lists