Re: [PATCH for 4.12] Revert "pinctrl: rockchip: avoid hardirq-unsafe functions in irq_chip"

[Heiko Stübner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Thomas,

Am Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017, 15:01:32 CEST schrieb Thomas Gleixner:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Brian Norris wrote:
> > So I agree that the above commit was problematic, and that you have
> > fixed that in your patch ("PM / wakeirq: Convert to SRCU"). But I
> > noticed there were other threads where people have complained about the
> > $subject patch also causing problems with drivers that call
> > disable_irq_nosync() from within an IRQ context. So I poked around with
> > one such driver that calls disable_irq_nosync() from its ISR [1], and
> > saw this:
> > 
> > [   14.524945] Bluetooth: : OOB Wake-on-BT configured at IRQ 56
> > [   14.531657] usbcore: registered new interface driver btusb
> > [   18.973886] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > kernel/locking/mutex.c:238 [   18.987695] in_atomic(): 1,
> > irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 0, name: swapper/0 [   18.995282] CPU: 0 PID:
> > 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.12.0-rc6+ #1233 [   19.002669] Hardware
> > name: Google Kevin (DT)
> > [   19.007435] Call trace:
> > [   19.010171] [<ffffff8008089928>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x24c
> > [   19.016202] [<ffffff8008089b94>] show_stack+0x20/0x28
> > [   19.021846] [<ffffff8008371270>] dump_stack+0x90/0xb0
> > [   19.027488] [<ffffff80080cd2a0>] ___might_sleep+0x10c/0x124
> > [   19.033713] [<ffffff80080cd330>] __might_sleep+0x78/0x88
> > [   19.039647] [<ffffff800879e248>] mutex_lock+0x2c/0x64
> > [   19.045291] [<ffffff80083ad578>] rockchip_irq_bus_lock+0x30/0x3c
> > [   19.052003] [<ffffff80080f6c68>] __irq_get_desc_lock+0x78/0x98
> > [   19.058519] [<ffffff80080f8e90>] __disable_irq_nosync+0x38/0x80
> > [   19.065132] [<ffffff80080f8ef8>] disable_irq_nosync+0x20/0x2c
> > [   19.071555] [<ffffff8000a99f58>] btusb_oob_wake_handler+0x4c/0x68
> > [btusb] [   19.079140] [<ffffff80080f7428>]
> > __handle_irq_event_percpu+0xf0/0x254 [   19.086336] [<ffffff80080f75c4>]
> > handle_irq_event_percpu+0x38/0x88 [   19.093239] [<ffffff80080f7660>]
> > handle_irq_event+0x4c/0x7c
> > [   19.099464] [<ffffff80080fb5dc>] handle_level_irq+0xd0/0x108
> > [   19.105785] [<ffffff80080f64e0>] generic_handle_irq+0x30/0x44
> > [   19.112204] [<ffffff80083ad308>] rockchip_irq_demux+0xe8/0x190
> > [   19.118720] [<ffffff80080f64e0>] generic_handle_irq+0x30/0x44
> > [   19.125138] [<ffffff80080f6b88>] __handle_domain_irq+0x90/0xbc
> > [   19.131652] [<ffffff8008080e98>] gic_handle_irq+0xe8/0x1b0
> > 
> > The documentation is fairly suggestive that ->irq_bus_lock() can sleep,
> > but then it also suggests that disable_irq_nosync() is safe in IRQ
> > context. So which is the "more true" one?
> 
> The function kerneldoc comment says:
> 
> * This function may be called from IRQ context.
> 
> 'May be called' is definitely different from 'is safe'.
> 
> So yes, there are issues with the interrupt controllers behind slow busses,
> 
> but OTOH, if you look at the complete picture:
>     	  |-----------|
> 
>  [GPOI] - |           |
>  [GPOI] - |           |
>  [GPOI] - | I2C GPIO  |-----------------[ CPU IRQ ]
>  [GPOI] - |           |
>  [GPOI] - |           |-----------------[ I2C Controller ]
> 
> 	  |-----------|
> 
> Then it's pretty obvious that you cannot access the I2C controller from the
> hard interrupt context of the CPU IRQ. The wakeup machinery here needs to
> mark the GPIO pin as wakeup irq and the underlying parent CPU irq as well.
> 
> So the CPU IRQ is what triggers the wakeup and that needs to be disabled
> until the system comes back and the real stuff gets called when the
> CPU interrupt is replayed.
> 
> Now the problem is that the CPU IRQ might be implemented as chained
> interrupt. And chained interrupts are not playing well with all of this
> because they evade all the normal interrupt handling mechanisms
> completely. So in the wakeup case the CPU irq cannot be disabled by the
> generic mechanisms, instead the chained handler is invoked, demuxes stuff
> and you end up with a call into the slow irq chip.
> 
> As a side note: I recently converted the AMD pinctrl driver to use a
> regular interrupt for demultiplexing because BIOS wreckaged machines
> drowned in spurious interrupts and locked up hard because chained interrupt
> handlers have no safety net whatsoever.
> 
> That aside, looking at the commit which caused this discussion:
> 
> 88bb94216f59e pinctrl: rockchip: avoid hardirq-unsafe functions in irq_chip
> 
> I assume (the changelog lacks details) that the patch want's to avoid a
> might sleep splat from the irq callbacks caused by the regmap spinlock,
> which gets converted into a sleeping lock on RT. It does this by abusing
> the irq_bus_lock() mechanism, which is wrong to begin with.
> 
> The only irq chip function which uses the regmap magic is the
> irq_set_type() callback. Now, I have a hard time to understand (though I'm
> no regmap/pinctrl expert) why that regmap stuff needs to be called in the
> first place. The level and the polarity are programmed via:
> 
>         writel_relaxed(level, gc->reg_base + GPIO_INTTYPE_LEVEL);
>         writel_relaxed(polarity, gc->reg_base + GPIO_INT_POLARITY);
> 
> Why needs the regmap machinery to be invoked there? The GPIO is already
> muxed and configured as interrupt, otherwise none of the irq functions
> could be invoked. Hmm?

That is a safeguard against the pinmux not being set as "gpio" but some other 
function, if the irq is requested directly without going through the gpio API. 

But looking at struct irq_chip and also other pinctrl drivers again, it seems
the new [0] irq_request_resources might be the way saner place for this.
Especially as it also prevents the mux-setting from being called more than 
once.


Heiko


[0] The pinctrl driver is from 2013, while the irq resources feature is from 
2014.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html