lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm v4 6/9] atmel_serial: Split the interrupt handler
Hi,
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:29:59 +0100
> michael <trimarchi@gandalf.sssup.it> wrote:
>
>>> Now, _that_ is strange. I can't see anything that needs protection
>>> across that call; in fact, I think we can lock a lot less than what we
>>> currently do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I explain it bad:
>> - with spin_lock the system seems, there is no problem with Valuntary
>> Preeption and
>> Preemptible Kernel
>> - with full preemption it runs but the serial line can't be used for
>> receiving at
>> high bit rate (using lrz)
>>
>
> ...but if you drop the spinlock across the call to
> tty_flip_buffer_push, you get an Oops?
>
> Could you post the Oops?
>
>
So this code

/*
* Drop the lock here since it might end up calling
* uart_start(), which takes the lock.
*/
spin_unlock(&port->lock);

tty_flip_buffer_push(port->info->tty);

spin_lock(&port->lock);

Works with:
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_HARDIRQS=y
CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y

but crash with:
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_DESKTOP is not set
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS=y
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_HARDIRQS is not set
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL is not set
CONFIG_CLASSIC_RCU=y

Seems to work in the last config if I comment the spin_lock &
spin_unlock call.
/*
* Drop the lock here since it might end up calling
* uart_start(), which takes the lock.

spin_unlock(&port->lock); */

tty_flip_buffer_push(port->info->tty);

/* spin_lock(&port->lock); */

It is not readable because I can't compile it with debugging information
(poor memory system)
>>>> Complete Preemption (Real-Time) ok but the serials is just unusable due
>>>> to too many overruns (just using lrz)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is it worse than before? IIRC Remy mentioned something about
>>> IRQF_NODELAY being the reason for moving all this code to softirq
>>> context in the first place; does the interrupt handler run in hardirq
>>> context?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> In the complete preemption yes.
>>
>
> Which question did you answer "yes" to? That it's worse than before or
> that the interrupt handler runs in hardirq context (i.e. IRQF_NODELAY)?
>
>
The interrupt handler run in IRQF_NODELAY context.
>>> I think you're right. Can you change it and see if it helps?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I just change it because I have corruption on receiving buffer. All
>> my test are done with this fix
>>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>>> I guess I didn't test it thoroughly enough with DMA
>>> disabled...slub_debug ought to catch such things, but not until we
>>> receive enough data to actually overflow the buffer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I just test it I don't have
>> buffer overflow.
>>
>
> No, I'd expect your allocation fix to take care of that. Or did you by
> any chance test without the fix and with slub_debug enabled?
>
>
I just meant that the buffer never fills up to its size.
>> I protect with a spinlock the access to the register when we sending
>> from the tasklet. It is correct?
>>
>
> I have no idea. Could you post some more specifics about what you
> modified, for example a diff?
>
>

...
/* The interrupt handler does not take the lock */
spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
atmel_tx_chars(port);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);

spin_lock(&port->lock);
...

The atmel_tx_chars using the serial device registers like the interrupt
routine
and so I think that it is possible to have interference during send
operation.

> Most of the tasklet is already protected by the spinlock, so you must
> be careful to avoid any lock recursion.
>
> Haavard
>
>
Regards Michael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-30 16:29    [W:0.065 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site