On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 12:08:43 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On the other hand virtio_airq_handler() calls vring_interrupt() with
> > interrupts enabled. (While vring_interrupt() is called in a (read)
> > critical section in virtio_airq_handler() we use read_lock() and
> > not read_lock_irqsave() to grab the lock. Whether that is correct in
> > it self (i.e. disregarding the crypto problem) or not I'm not sure right
> > now. Will think some more about it tomorrow.) If the way to go forward
> > is disabling interrupts in virtio-ccw before vring_interrupt() is
> > called, I would be glad to spin a patch for that.
>
> virtio_airq_handler() is supposed to be an interrupt handler for an
> adapter interrupt -- as such I would expect it to always run with
> interrupts disabled (and I'd expect vring_interrupt() to be called
> with interrupts disabled as well; if that's not the case, I think it
> would need to run asynchronously.) At least that was my understanding at
> the time I wrote the code.
Thanks Connie! I don't quite understand what do you mean by "run with
interrupts disabled" in this context.
Do you mean that if I were to add the following warning:
diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
index ac67576301bf..2a9c73f5964f 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c
@@ -211,6 +211,8 @@ static void virtio_airq_handler(struct airq_struct *airq,
struct airq_info *info = container_of(airq, struct airq_info, airq);
unsigned long ai;
+ WARN_ONCE(in_irq(), "irqs are ought to be disabled but are not\n");
+
inc_irq_stat(IRQIO_VAI);
it would/should never trigger, or do you mean something different?
If yes, does that mean that you would expect the common airq code (i.e. something
like do_airq_interrupt()) to disable interrupts, or call virtio_airq_handler()?
asynchronously sort of as a bottom half (my understanding of bottom halves is currently
not complete).
If no what do you actually mean?
Regards,
Halil
Regards,
Halil
