On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 06:36:39AM +0000, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:41 PM > > To: Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx>; Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > > Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Greg > > Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Samsung > > SOC <linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; open list:SERIAL DRIVERS > > <linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List > > <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx>; Arnd > > Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: samsung_tty: remove spinlock flags in > > interrupt handlers > > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 11:02 AM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 07:12:12PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > Since interrupt handler is called with disabled local interrupts, there > > > > is no need to use the spinlock primitives disabling interrupts as well. > > > > > > This isn't generally true due to "threadirqs" and that can lead to > > > deadlocks if the console code is called from hard irq context. > > > > > > Now, this is *not* the case for this particular driver since it doesn't > > > even bother to take the port lock in console_write(). That should > > > probably be fixed instead. > > > > > > See https://lore.kernel.org/r/X7kviiRwuxvPxC8O@localhost. > > > > Finn, Barry, something to check I think? > > My understanding is that spin_lock_irqsave can't protect the context > the console_write() is called in hardirq for threaded_irq case mainly > for preempt-rt scenarios as spin_lock_irqsave doesn't disable irq in > that case at all. Forced threaded interrupts have so far run with interrupts enabled and spin_lock_irqsave() would suffice on non-RT. This is about to change though so that drivers don't need to worry about "threadirqs": https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210317143859.513307808@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > See: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/locking/locktypes.html > spinlock_t and PREEMPT_RT > On a PREEMPT_RT kernel spinlock_t is mapped to a separate implementation > based on rt_mutex which changes the semantics: > Preemption is not disabled. > The hard interrupt related suffixes for spin_lock / spin_unlock operations > (_irq, _irqsave / _irqrestore) do not affect the CPU’s interrupt disabled > state. > > So if console_write() can interrupt our code in hardirq, we should > move to raw_spin_lock_irqsave for this driver. No, no. RT handles this by deferring console writes apparently. > I think it is almost always wrong to call spin_lock_irqsave in hardirq. Again, no. It's even been a requirement due to "threadirqs" in some cases (e.g. hrtimers) up until now (or rather until the above patch is in mainline). Johan
