On 2022-05-10 09:56:05 [+0200], Lukas Wunner wrote: > An example for irqchips where the warning is false positive are > USB-attached GPIO controllers such as drivers/gpio/gpio-dln2.c: They are not false positives because… > USB gadgets are incapable of directly signaling an interrupt because > they cannot initiate a bus transaction by themselves. All communication > on the bus is initiated by the host controller, which polls a gadget's > Interrupt Endpoint in regular intervals. If an interrupt is pending, > that information is passed up the stack in softirq context, from which > a hardirq is synthesized via generic_handle_domain_irq(). they tell you that the context is wrong. From looking at gpio-dln2 this is called from USB URB's callback which is softirq. In the end dln2_gpio_event() is invoked while dln2_dev::event_cb_lock is acquired. That lock is acquired by disabling interrupts which is what gets the locking right for generic_handle_domain_irq(). If that lock lifted to spin_lock_bh() (because it is always in urb's calback context and all HCDs complete in one context unlike now) then this breaks. And PREEMPT_RT is broken already. Therefore, last week, I've been promoting generic_handle_domain_irq_safe() https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YnkfWFzvusFFktSt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and sadly I missed dln2. Please let me know if you have more users similar to dln2. I will add those to my list once upstream buys that interface. Sebastian