Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:48:28 +0200 | From | Ido Yariv <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] genirq: Flush the irq thread on synchronization |
| |
Hi Thomas,
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 09:09:32PM +0200, Ido Yariv wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 12:21:46AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > I can see your problem, but this might lead to threads_active leaks > > under certain conditions. desc->threads_active was only meant to deal > > with shared interrupts. > > > > We explicitely allow a design where the primary handler can leave the > > device interrupt enabled and allow further interrupts to occur while > > the handler is running. We only have a single bit to note that the > > thread should run, but your wakeup would up the threads_active count > > in that scenario several times w/o a counterpart which decrements it. > > > > The solution for this is to keep the current threads_active semantics > > and make the wait function different. Instead of waiting for > > threads_active to become 0 it should wait for threads_active == 0 and > > the IRQTF_RUNTHREAD for all actions to be cleared. To avoid looping > > over the actions, we can take a similar approach as we take with the > > desc->threads_oneshot bitfield. > > Thanks for reviewing this. > > I might be missing something, but I don't see any potential > threads_active leaks in this approach. We wont increase threads_active > if IRQTF_RUNTHREAD was already set beforehand (as test_and_set_bit() > will return 1). > > If irq_wake_thread is called multiple times before irq_thread has had a > chance to run, threads_active will only be increased once and decreased > back when IRQTF_RUNTHREAD is cleared. > > Am I missing something? If not, do you see any other issues with this > implementation?
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks, Ido.
| |