On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:19:57 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On 2020-08-13 11:46:30 [+0200], Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > >> If you are running with forced IRQ threads the only thing that will then > >> happen in the actual hard IRQ context is the launching of the IRQ threads. > >> Th e IRQ handler of the device driver will run in a threaded IRQ. > > > > So if it is really just the wakeup of the IRQ-thread then it should be > > okay. > > One thing: iio_trigger_poll() may invoke iio_trigger_notify_done(). This > > would invoke trig->ops->try_reenable callback if available. > > I grepped and found > > - bma180_trig_try_reen() > > It appears to perform i2c_smbus_read_byte_data() and smbus sounds > > sleeping. I don't know if it attempts to acquire any spinlock_t but it > > will be wrong on RT. > > It's wrong even on !RT. i2c reads cannot be invoked from hard interrupt > context. > We would hit this (and resulting warnings) all the time if it actually happened, so my suspicion is that it doesn't. I think the path doesn't actually exist although it looks at first glance like it does. The interrupt can only be enabled if there is someone using the trigger. Thus usecount will be non zero and for at least one element trig->subirq[i].enabled == true So we will decrement trig->usecount in the call to iio_trigger_notify_done but never reach 0 thus the call to trig->ops->try_reenable never happens in the hard interrupt context. It does happen later when which ever driver we triggered finishes the threaded part of it's handler and calls iio_trigger_notify_done, but that is fine. Assuming people agree with my analysis it would be good to make it explicit that we cannot hit the problem path. Perhaps call a new iio_trigger_notify_no_needed() that simply does the decrement without test, or does it with test and spits out a warning if we hit 0. Jonathan
