lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] perf/smmuv3: Fix shared interrupt handling
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:48:14PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-04-08 17:49, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > IRQF_SHARED is dangerous, since it allows other agents to retarget the
> > IRQ's affinity without migrating PMU contexts to match, breaking the way
> > in which perf manages mutual exclusion for accessing events. Although
> > this means it's not realistically possible to support PMU IRQs being
> > shared with other drivers, we *can* handle sharing between multiple PMU
> > instances with some explicit affinity bookkeeping and manual interrupt
> > multiplexing.
> >
> > RCU helps us handle interrupts efficiently without having to worry about
> > fine-grained locking for relatively-theoretical race conditions with the
> > probe/remove/CPU hotplug slow paths. The resulting machinery ends up
> > looking largely generic, so it should be feasible to factor out with a
> > "system PMU" base class for similar multi-instance drivers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
> > ---
> >
> > RFC because I don't have the means to test it, and if the general
> > approach passes muster then I'd want to tackle the aforementioned
> > factoring-out before merging anything anyway.
>
> Any comments on whether it's worth pursuing this?

Sorry, I don't really get the problem that it's solving. Is there a crash
log somewhere I can look at? If all the users of the IRQ are managed by
this driver, why is IRQF_SHARED dangerous?

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-24 14:51    [W:0.095 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site