Hi Mika, Hi Mario, On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:39 AM Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:57:43PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > In the current arrangement, all of the acpi_ev_sci_xrupt_handler() code > > is run as an interrupt handler for the SCI, in interrupt context. Among > > other things, this causes it to run with local interrupts off which > > can be problematic if many GPEs are enabled and they are located in the > > I/O address space, for example (because in that case local interrupts > > will be off for the duration of all of the GPE hardware accesses carried > > out while handling an SCI combined and that may be quite a bit of time > > in extreme scenarios). > > > > However, there is no particular reason why the code in question really > > needs to run in interrupt context and in particular, it has no specific > > reason to run with local interrupts off. The only real requirement is > > to prevent multiple instences of it from running in parallel with each > > other, but that can be achieved regardless. > > > > For this reason, use request_threaded_irq() instead of request_irq() for > > the ACPI SCI and pass IRQF_ONESHOT to it in flags to indicate that the > > interrupt needs to be masked while its handling thread is running so as > > to prevent it from re-triggering while it is being handled (and in > > particular until the final handled/not handled outcome is determined). > > > > While at it, drop a redundant local variable from acpi_irq(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > The code inspection and (necessarily limited) testing carried out by me > > are good indications that this should just always work, but there may > > be still some really odd platform configurations I'm overlooking, so if > > you have a way to give it a go, please do so. > > Tried this on ADL-S and ADL-P systems that I have here and both work > just fine with the patch applied. I can see SCI interrupt count > increases in /proc/interrupts as expected. Did a couple of s2idle cycles > too, all good. > > Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for your replies and tags! Given the lack of response from anyone else I'm going to move this towards linux-next with 6.8 as the target. Thank you!
