Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Sep 2014 12:53:10 +0100 | From | Daniel Thompson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] irqchip: gic: Add support for IPI FIQ |
| |
On 09/09/14 09:24, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On 08/09/14 17:23, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 04:28:35PM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote: >>> @@ -604,8 +731,19 @@ static void gic_raise_softirq(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int irq) >>> { >>> int cpu; >>> unsigned long flags, map = 0; >>> + unsigned long softint; >>> >>> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_controller_lock, flags); >>> + /* >>> + * The locking in this function ensures we don't use stale cpu mappings >>> + * and thus we never route an IPI to the wrong physical core during a >>> + * big.LITTLE switch. The switch code takes both of these locks meaning >>> + * we can choose whichever lock is safe to use from our current calling >>> + * context. >>> + */ >>> + if (in_nmi()) >>> + raw_spin_lock(&fiq_safe_migration_lock); >>> + else >>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_controller_lock, flags); >> >> Firstly, why would gic_raise_softirq() be called in FIQ context? > > Oops. > > This code should have been removed. It *is* required for kgdb (which > needs to send FIQ to other processors via IPI and may itself be running > from FIQ) but it not needed for the currently targeted use case.
I'm afraid I was wrong about this. gic_raise_softitq() is called during console unlocking inside wake_up_klogd(). This means it is required even to support arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace.
I'm trying to get a (tested) refresh of the FIQ + trigger_backtrace out today. Thus for now I plan to reinstate the code above (which I believe to be safe because FIQ is disabled throughout a b.L switch).
Nevertheless I won't ignore this comment! I think a using a r/w lock here can be made FIQ-safe without having to rely on in_nmi() based conditional branches.
Daniel.
>> Secondly, >> this doesn't save you. If you were in the middle of gic_migrate_target() >> when the FIQ happened that (for some reason prompted you to call this), >> you would immediately deadlock trying to that this IRQ. > > This cannot happen because gic_migrate_target() runs with FIQ disabled. > > >> I suggest not even trying to solve this "race" which I don't think is >> one which needs to even be considered (due to the first point.) > > As mentioned above I believe it eventually needs to be addressed by some > means but it certainly doesn't belong in the current patchset. > > I will remove it. >
| |