lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] let setup_irq reenable a shared irq
Hello,

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > Oh no. There is lots of code in drivers, which does:
> > >
> > > disable_irq();
> > > do_some_protected_stuff();
> > > enable_irq();
> > >
> > > So when the second driver is loaded on another CPU it would see the
> > > IRQ_DISABLED bit set and unconditionally reenable the interrupt.
> > >
> > > This unprotects the protected operation and definitely triggers the
> > > WARN_ON() in enable_irq() where we check for desc->depth == 0.
> > mmpf.
> >
> > It's not nice to use disable_irq()/enable_irq() in a driver, is it?
>
> Well, it's not nice, but it's there (in rather large quantities)
Ah, and now I finally understood desc->depth ...

> Subject: genirq: reenable a nobody cared disabled irq when a new driver arrives
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:01:56 +0200
>
> Uwe Kleine-Koenig has some strange hardware where one of the shared
> interrupts can be asserted during boot before the appropriate driver
> loads. Requesting the shared irq line from another driver results in a
> spurious interrupt storm which finally disables the interrupt line.
>
> I have seen similar behaviour on resume before (the hardware does not
> work anymore so I can not verify) and this spurious irq issue is
> raised on a regular base in bugreports.
>
> Change the spurious disable logic to increment the disable depth and
> mark the interrupt with an extra flag which allows us to reenable the
> interrupt when a new driver arrives which requests the same irq
> line. In the worst case this will disable the irq again via the
> spurious trap, but there is a decent chance that the new driver is the
> one which can handle the already asserted interrupt and makes the box
> usable again.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
> include/linux/irq.h | 1 +
> kernel/irq/manage.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> kernel/irq/spurious.c | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/irq.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/irq.h
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/irq.h
> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ typedef void (*irq_flow_handler_t)(unsig
> #define IRQ_WAKEUP 0x00100000 /* IRQ triggers system wakeup */
> #define IRQ_MOVE_PENDING 0x00200000 /* need to re-target IRQ destination */
> #define IRQ_NO_BALANCING 0x00400000 /* IRQ is excluded from balancing */
> +#define IRQ_SPURIOUS_DISABLED 0x00400000 /* IRQ was disabled by the spurious trap */
Is it intended that IRQ_NO_BALANCING == IRQ_SPURIOUS_DISABLED?

Other than that

Tested-and-Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@digi.com>

Best regards and thanks
Uwe

--
Uwe Kleine-König, Software Engineer
Digi International GmbH Branch Breisach, Küferstrasse 8, 79206 Breisach, Germany
Tax: 315/5781/0242 / VAT: DE153662976 / Reg. Amtsgericht Dortmund HRB 13962
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-29 15:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans