On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:33:44AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Tue, Aug 26 2014 at 10:34:51 pm BST, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >
> >> A number of irqchip drivers are directly calling irq_find_mapping,
> >> which may use a rcu_read_lock call when walking the radix tree.
> >>
> >> Turns out that if you hit that point with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU enabled,
> >> the kernel will shout at you, as using RCU in this context may be
> >> illegal (specially if coming from the idle state, where RCU would be
> >> in a quiescent state).
> >>
> >> A possible fix would be to wrap calls to irq_find_mapping into a
> >> RCU_NONIDLE macro, but that really looks ugly.
> >>
> >> This patch series introduce another generic IRQ entry point
> >> (handle_domain_irq), which has the exact same behaviour as handle_IRQ
> >> (as defined on arm, arm64 and openrisc), except that it also takes a
> >> irq_domain pointer. This allows the logical IRQ lookup to be done
> >> inside the irq_{enter,exit} section, which contains a
> >> rcu_irq_{enter,exit}, making it safe.
> >
> > Looks good. Should this be routed to the genirq tree?
>
> I'm happy for you to take this series, provided the architecture
> maintainers agree on it (I'm still to hear from the openrisc guys, and
> their mailing-list seems to positively hate my guts).
I think everyone's had a chance to look over it by now. Thomas, shall I
take the series?
thx,
Jason.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
