On Mon, 22 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
On 2021/2/9 13:06, Finn Thain wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI
drivers. There are no function changes, but may speed up if
interrupt happen too often.
This change doesn't necessarily work on platforms that support
nested interrupts.
Were you able to measure any benefit from this change on some
other platform?
I think the code disabling irq in hardIRQ is simply wrong. Since
this commit
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e58aa3d2d0cc
genirq: Run irq handlers with interrupts disabled
interrupt handlers are definitely running in a irq-disabled
context unless irq handlers enable them explicitly in the
handler to permit other interrupts.
Repeating the same claim does not somehow make it true. If you put
your claim to the test, you'll see that that interrupts are not
disabled on m68k when interrupt handlers execute.
The Interrupt Priority Level (IPL) can prevent any given irq
handler from being re-entered, but an irq with a higher priority
level may be handled during execution of a lower priority irq
handler.
sonic_interrupt() uses an irq lock within an interrupt handler to
avoid issues relating to this. This kind of locking may be needed
in the drivers you are trying to patch. Or it might not.
Apparently, no-one has looked.
According to your discussion with Barry, it seems that m68k is a
little different from other architecture, and this kind of
modification of this patch cannot be applied to m68k. So, could help
to point out which driver belong to m68k architecture in this patch
set of SCSI? I can remove them.
If you would claim that "there are no function changes" in your
patches (as above) then the onus is on you to support that claim.
I assume that there are some platforms on which your assumptions hold.
With regard to drivers for those platforms, you might want to explain
why your patches should be applied there, given that the existing code
is superior for being more portable.
I don't think it has nothing to do with portability. In the case of
sonic_interrupt() you pointed out, on m68k, there is a high-priority
interrupt can preempt low-priority interrupt, they will result in access
the same critical data. M68K's spin_lock_irqsave() can disable the
high-priority interrupt and avoid the race condition of the data. So the
case should not be touched. I'd like to accept the reality and leave
sonic_interrupt() alone.
However, even on m68k, spin_lock_irqsave is not needed for other
ordinary cases.
If there is no other irq handler coming to access same critical data,
it is pointless to hold a redundant irqsave lock in irqhandler even
on m68k.
In thread contexts, we always need that if an irqhandler can preempt
those threads and access the same data. In hardirq, if there is an
high-priority which can jump out on m68k to access the critical data
which needs protection, we use the spin_lock_irqsave as you have used in
sonic_interrupt(). Otherwise, the irqsave is also redundant for m68k.
BTW, sonic_interrupt() is from net driver natsemi, right? It would
be appreciative if only discuss SCSI drivers in this patch set.
thanks.
The 'net' subsystem does have some different requirements than the
'scsi' subsystem. But I don't see how that's relevant. Perhaps you can
explain it. Thanks.
The difference is that if there are two co-existing interrupts which can
access the same critical data on m68k. I don't think net and scsi
matter. What really matters is the specific driver.
Regarding m68k, your analysis overlooks the timing issue. E.g. patch 11/32
could be a problem because removing the irqsave would allow PDMA transfers
to be interrupted. Aside from the timing issues, I agree with your
analysis above regarding m68k.
With regard to other architectures and platforms, in specific cases, e.g.
where there's never more than one IRQ involved, then I could agree that
your assumptions probably hold and an irqsave would be probably redundant.
When you find a redundant irqsave, to actually patch it would bring a risk
of regression with little or no reward. It's not my place to veto this
entire patch series on that basis but IMO this kind of churn is misguided.
Thanks
Barry
