On 19.02.2016 17:23, Anand Moon wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On 19 February 2016 at 13:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 19.02.2016 15:51, Anand Moon wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 19 February 2016 at 11:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 2016-02-19 4:14 GMT+09:00 Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 18 February 2016 at 23:18, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Anand,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/18/2016 09:40 AM, Anand Moon wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> changes fix the correct order of the spin_lock_irqrestore/save.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c
>>>>>>> index d72cd73..96fe14d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung.c
>>>>>>> @@ -759,9 +759,9 @@ static irqreturn_t s3c24xx_serial_tx_chars(int irq, void *id)
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (uart_circ_chars_pending(xmit) < WAKEUP_CHARS) {
>>>>>>> - spin_unlock(&port->lock);
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
>>>>>>> uart_write_wakeup(port);
>>>>>>> - spin_lock(&port->lock);
>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This driver shouldn't be dropping the spin lock at for write wakeup.
>>>>>> If this is causing lock-ups in a line discipline, the line discipline
>>>>>> needs fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for pointing out.
>>>>> Their is no lock up, just the inconstancy of the spin_lock.
>>>>> Then I will resend this patch dropping the spin_unlock/spin_lock
>>>>> around uart_write_wakeup.
>>>>> Is that ok with you.
>>>>
>>>> Anand, before doing that, can you check Peter's second sentence? I
>>>> mean the "If this is causing lock-ups in a line discipline, the line
>>>> discipline needs fixed.".
>>>> Don't drop the spin-locks "just because". I would be happy to see more
>>>> detailed explanation in changelog.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>> Yes I understood the meaning of the sentence. Already the
>>> s3c24xx_serial_tx_chars function.
>>> holds the lock port->lock for safe IRQ execution.
>>
>> I am sorry but I don't get your explanation. I mentioned Peter's
>> thoughts about lockups after adding locking over uart_write(). However
>> you are referring to s3c24xx_serial_tx_chars() holding the spin lock...
>> I am missing the point...
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>
> I should be sorry I could not explain you in technical terms.
> Interrupt routine already hold the port->lock
>
> s3c24xx_serial_tx_chars
> \
> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
> \...
> spin_unlock(&port->lock);
> uart_write_wakeup(port);
> spin_lock(&port->lock);
> \
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
>
This is obvious.
> In my next patch I have tried to remove the spin_unlock/spin_lock over
> uart_write_wakeup(port);
Which may create lockups. Previously there was no port locking around
uart_write_wakeup. Now there will be. You are effectively adding locking
over uart_write_wakeup().
Again, we are back at the Peter's message - just check the damned lockups...
BR,
Krzysztof
BR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
