Hallo Sebastian,
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:39:18PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-03-22 12:34:02 [+0100], Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:10:36PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > Force-threaded interrupt handlers used to run with interrupts enabled,
> > > something which could lead to deadlocks in case a threaded handler
> > > shared a lock with code running in hard interrupt context (e.g. timer
> > > callbacks) and did not explicitly disable interrupts.
> > >
> > > This was specifically the case for serial drivers that take the port
> > > lock in their console write path as printk can be called from hard
> > > interrupt context also with forced threading ("threadirqs").
> > >
> > > Since commit 81e2073c175b ("genirq: Disable interrupts for force
> > > threaded handlers") interrupt handlers always run with interrupts
> > > disabled on non-RT so that drivers no longer need to do handle this.
> >
> > So we're breaking RT knowingly here? If this is the case I'm not happy
> > with your change. (And if RT is not affected a different wording would
> > be good.)
>
> Which wording, could you be more specific? It looks good from here and
> no, RT is not affected.
The commit log says essentially: "The change is fine on non-RT" which
suggests there is a problem on RT. So something like:
On non-RT interrupts are disabled also for force threaded handlers
(since commit 81e2073c175b ...). On RT there is no problem either
because ... So we don't need to handle this case in the driver any more.
would be preferable.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
