On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 01:22:17AM +0000, Liuye wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:04:54AM +0000, Liuye wrote: > >> >On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 08:37:11AM +0000, Liuye wrote: > >> >> I know that you said schedule_work is not NMI save, which is the > >> >> first issue. Perhaps it can be fixed using irq_work_queue. But > >> >> even if irq_work_queue is used to implement it, there will still > >> >> be a deadlock problem because slave cpu1 still has not released > >> >> the running queue lock of master CPU0. > >> > > >> >This doesn't sound right to me. Why do you think CPU1 won't > >> >release the run queue lock? > >> > >> In this example, CPU1 is waiting for CPU0 to release > >> dbg_slave_lock. > > > >That shouldn't be a problem. CPU0 will have released that lock by the > >time the irq work is dispatched. > > Release dbg_slave_lock in CPU0. Before that, shcedule_work needs to be > handled, and we are back to the previous issue. Sorry but I still don't understand what problem you think can happen here. What is wrong with calling schedule_work() from the IRQ work handler? Both irq_work_queue() and schedule_work() are calls to queue deferred work. It does not matter when the work is queued (providing we are lock safe). What matters is when the work is actually executed. Please can you describe the problem you think exists based on when the work is executed. Daniel.
