On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:42:19AM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
From: Grygorii Strashko [mailto:grygorii.strashko@ti.com] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 11:28 PM On 12/02/2021 11:45, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:05 AM Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com wrote:
Note. there is also generic_handle_irq() call inside.
So generic_handle_irq() is not safe to run in thread thus requires an interrupt-disabled environment to run? If so, I'd rather this irqsave moved into generic_handle_irq() rather than asking everyone calling it to do irqsave.
In a preempt-rt kernel, interrupts are run in task context, so they clearly should not be called with interrupts disabled, that would defeat the purpose of making them preemptible.
generic_handle_irq() does need to run with in_irq()==true though, but this should be set by the caller of the gpiochip's handler, and it is not set by raw_spin_lock_irqsave().
It will produce warning from __handle_irq_event_percpu(), as this is IRQ dispatcher and generic_handle_irq() will call one of handle_level_irq or handle_edge_irq.
The history behind this is commit 450fa54cfd66 ("gpio: omap: convert to use generic irq handler").
The resent related discussion: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/5/208
Ok, second thought. irqsave before generic_handle_irq() won't defeat the purpose of preemption too much as the dispatched irq handlers by gpiochip will run in their own threads but not in the thread of gpiochip's handler.
so looks like this patch can improve by:
- move other raw_spin_lock_irqsave to raw_spin_lock;
- keep the raw_spin_lock_irqsave before generic_handle_irq() to mute
the warning in genirq.
Isn't the idea of irqsave is to prevent dead lock from the process context when we get interrupt on the *same* CPU?