Re: [Linuxarm] [PATCH for next v1 0/2] gpio: few clean up patches to replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock

On 2021/2/9 17:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:24 AM luojiaxing [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2021/2/8 21:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 11:11 AM luojiaxing [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Sorry, my operation error causes a patch missing from this patch set. I
re-send the patch set. Please check the new one.

What is the new one?! You have to give proper versioning and change
log for your series.

sure, I will send a new one later, but let me answer your question first.

quoted

quoted

On 2021/2/8 16:56, Luo Jiaxing wrote:

quoted

There is no need to use API with _irqsave in hard IRQ handler, So replace
those with spin_lock.

How do you know that another CPU in the system can't serve the

The keyword here is: *another*.

ooh, sorry, now I got your point.


As to me, I don't think another CPU can serve the IRQ when one CPU 
runing hard IRQ handler,

except it's a per CPU interrupts.


The following is a simple call logic when IRQ come.

elx_irq -> handle_arch_irq -> __handle_domain_irq -> desc->handle_irq -> 
handle_irq_event


Assume that two CPUs receive the same IRQ and enter the preceding 
process. Both of them will go to desc->handle_irq().

In handle_irq(), raw_spin_lock(&desc->lock) always be called first. 
Therefore, even if two CPUs are running handle_irq(),

only one can get the spin lock. Assume that CPU A obtains the spin lock. 
Then CPU A will sets the status of irq_data to

IRQD_IRQ_INPROGRESS in handle_irq_event() and releases the spin lock. 
Even though CPU B gets the spin lock later and

continue to run handle_irq(), but the check of irq_may_run(desc) causes 
it to exit.


so, I think we don't own the situation that two CPU server the hard IRQ 
handler at the same time.

quoted

quoted

following interrupt from the hardware at the same time?

Yes, I have some question before.

There are some similar discussion here,  please take a look, Song baohua
explained it more professionally.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e949a474a9284ac6951813bfc8b34945@hisilicon.com/ (local)

Here are some excerpts from the discussion:

I think the code disabling irq in hardIRQ is simply wrong.

Why?

I mention the following call before.

elx_irq -> handle_arch_irq -> __handle_domain_irq -> desc->handle_irq -> 
handle_irq_event


__handle_domain_irq() will call irq_enter(), it ensures that the IRQ 
processing of the current CPU can not be preempted.

So I think this is the reason why Song baohua said it's not need to 
disable IRQ in hardIRQ handler.

quoted

Since this commit
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e58aa3d2d0cc
genirq: Run irq handlers with interrupts disabled

interrupt handlers are definitely running in a irq-disabled context
unless irq handlers enable them explicitly in the handler to permit
other interrupts.

This doesn't explain any changes in the behaviour on SMP.
IRQ line can be disabled on a few stages:
  a) on the source (IP that generates an event)
  b) on IRQ router / controller
  c) on CPU side

yes, you are right.

The commit above is discussing (rightfully!) the problem when all
interrupts are being served by a *single* core. Nobody prevents them
from being served by *different* cores simultaneously. Also, see [1].

[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/htmldocs/kernel-locking/cheatsheet.html

I check [1], quite useful description about locking, thanks. But you can

see Table of locking Requirements


Between IRQ handler A and IRQ handle A, it's no need for a SLIS.


Thanks

Jiaxing