[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aH5OUChoFx55WnVG@yury>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 10:27:28 -0400
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: simplify irq_im_handle_irq()
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 04:07:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Yury!
>
> On Sat, Jul 19 2025 at 17:18, Yury Norov wrote:
>
> 'irq:' is not the correct prefix here. See:
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html#patch-submission-notes
>
> Also irq_im_handle_irq() is not a known function name.
>
> > From: Yury Norov (NVIDIA) <yury.norov@...il.com>
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
>
> Since when is a greeting part of the changelog?
>
> > The function calls bitmap_empty() for potentially every bit in
> > work_ctx->pending, which makes a simple bitmap traverse O(N^2).
> > Fix it by switching to the dedicated for_each_set_bit().
> >
> > While there, fix using atomic clear_bit() in a context where atomicity
> > cannot be guaranteed.
>
> Seriously? See below.
>
> > static void irq_sim_handle_irq(struct irq_work *work)
> > {
> > struct irq_sim_work_ctx *work_ctx;
> > - unsigned int offset = 0;
> > + unsigned int offset;
> > int irqnum;
> >
> > work_ctx = container_of(work, struct irq_sim_work_ctx, work);
> >
> > - while (!bitmap_empty(work_ctx->pending, work_ctx->irq_count)) {
> > - offset = find_next_bit(work_ctx->pending,
> > - work_ctx->irq_count, offset);
> > - clear_bit(offset, work_ctx->pending);
> > + for_each_set_bit(offset, work_ctx->pending, work_ctx->irq_count) {
> > + __clear_bit(offset, work_ctx->pending);
>
> This is just wrong.
>
> __clear_bit() can only be used when there is _NO_ concurrency
> possible. But this has concurrency:
>
> irq_sim_set_irqchip_state()
> ...
> assign_bit(hwirq, irq_ctx->work_ctx->pending, state);
>
> That function can be executed on a different CPU concurrently while the
> other CPU walks the bitmap and tries to clear a bit. The function
> documentation of __clear_bit() has this documented very clearly:
>
> * Unlike clear_bit(), this function is non-atomic. If it is called on the same
> * region of memory concurrently, the effect may be that only one operation * succeeds.
>
> No?
find_next_bit() and for_each_bit() cannot be used in concurrent
environment, and having atomic clear_bit() is meaningless here.
Two concurrent processes, if running in parallel, may pick the
same offset, ending up executing the handle_simple_irq() twice.
So, the work_ctx->pending must be local or protected bitmap to make
this all working.
It simply doesn't matter how do you clean the offset - atomically
or not.
I have a series for atomic find_bit() API, not merged though. In
I described it in details there [1].
Or I miss something in the IRQ handling logic?
Thanks,
Yury
[1] https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/ath10k/2024-June/015900.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists