On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
There is no warning from m68k builds. That's because arch_irqs_disabled() returns true when the IPL is non-zero.
So for m68k, the case is arch_irqs_disabled() is true, but interrupts can still come?
Then it seems it is very confusing. If prioritized interrupts can still come while arch_irqs_disabled() is true,
Yes, on m68k CPUs, an IRQ having a priority level higher than the present priority mask will get serviced.
Non-Maskable Interrupt (NMI) is not subject to this rule and gets serviced regardless.
how could spin_lock_irqsave() block the prioritized interrupts?
It raises the the mask level to 7. Again, please see arch/m68k/include/asm/irqflags.h
Hi Finn, Thanks for your explanation again.
TBH, that is why m68k is so confusing. irqs_disabled() on m68k should just reflect the status of all interrupts have been disabled except NMI.
irqs_disabled() should be consistent with the calling of APIs such as local_irq_disable, local_irq_save, spin_lock_irqsave etc.
When irqs_disabled() returns true, we cannot infer that arch_local_irq_disable() was called. But I have not yet found driver code or core kernel code attempting that inference.
Isn't arch_irqs_disabled() a status reflection of irq disable API?
Why not?
If so, arch_irqs_disabled() should mean all interrupts have been masked except NMI as NMI is unmaskable.
Can you support that claim with a reference to core kernel code or documentation? (If some arch code agrees with you, that's neither here nor there.)
I think those links I share you have supported this. Just you don't believe :-)
Your links show that the distinction between fast and slow handlers was removed. Your links don't support your claim that "arch_irqs_disabled() should mean all interrupts have been masked". Where is the code that makes that inference? Where is the documentation that supports your claim?
Are all interrupts (including NMI) masked whenever arch_irqs_disabled() returns true on your platforms?
On my platform, once irqs_disabled() is true, all interrupts are masked except NMI. NMI just ignore spin_lock_irqsave or local_irq_disable.
On ARM64, we also have high-priority interrupts, but they are running as PESUDO_NMI: https://lwn.net/Articles/755906/
A glance at the ARM GIC specification suggests that your hardware works much like 68000 hardware.
When enabled, a CPU interface takes the highest priority pending interrupt for its connected processor and determines whether the interrupt has sufficient priority for it to signal the interrupt request to the processor. [...]
When the processor acknowledges the interrupt at the CPU interface, the Distributor changes the status of the interrupt from pending to either active, or active and pending. At this point the CPU interface can signal another interrupt to the processor, to preempt interrupts that are active on the processor. If there is no pending interrupt with sufficient priority for signaling to the processor, the interface deasserts the interrupt request signal to the processor.
https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ihi0048/b/
Have you considered that Linux/arm might benefit if it could fully exploit hardware features already available, such as the interrupt priority masking feature in the GIC in existing arm systems?
I guess no:-) there are only two levels: IRQ and NMI. Injecting a high-prio IRQ level between them makes no sense.
To me, arm64's design is quite clear and has no any confusion.
Are you saying that the ARM64 hardware design is confusing because it implements a priority mask, and that's why you had to simplify it with a pseudo-nmi scheme in software?
On m68k, it seems you mean： irq_disabled() is true, but high-priority interrupts can still come; local_irq_disable() can disable high-priority interrupts, and at that time, irq_disabled() is also true.
TBH, this is wrong and confusing on m68k.
Like you, I was surprised when I learned about it. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. The fact that it works should tell you something.
The fact is that m68k lets arch_irq_disabled() return true to pretend all IRQs are disabled while high-priority IRQ is still open, thus "pass" all sanitizing check in genirq and kernel core.
The fact is that m68k has arch_irq_disabled() return false when all IRQs are enabled. So there is no bug.
Things could always be made simpler. But discarding features isn't necessarily an improvement.
This feature could be used by calling local_irq_enable_in_hardirq() in those IRQ handlers who hope high-priority interrupts to preempt it for a while.
So, if one handler is sensitive to interrupt latency, all other handlers should be modified? I don't think that's workable.
In anycase, what you're describing is a completely different nested interrupt scheme that would defeat the priority level mechanism that the hardware provides us with.
It shouldn't hide somewhere and make confusion.
The problem is hiding so well that no-one has found it! I say it doesn't exist.
On the other hand, those who care about realtime should use threaded IRQ and let IRQ threads preempt each other.
Yes. And those threads also have priority levels.
Thanks Barry