lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] genirq: Flush the irq thread on synchronization
    On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Ido Yariv wrote:

    > Hi Thomas,
    >
    > On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 09:09:32PM +0200, Ido Yariv wrote:
    > > Hi Thomas,
    > >
    > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 12:21:46AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
    > > > I can see your problem, but this might lead to threads_active leaks
    > > > under certain conditions. desc->threads_active was only meant to deal
    > > > with shared interrupts.
    > > >
    > > > We explicitely allow a design where the primary handler can leave the
    > > > device interrupt enabled and allow further interrupts to occur while
    > > > the handler is running. We only have a single bit to note that the
    > > > thread should run, but your wakeup would up the threads_active count
    > > > in that scenario several times w/o a counterpart which decrements it.
    > > >
    > > > The solution for this is to keep the current threads_active semantics
    > > > and make the wait function different. Instead of waiting for
    > > > threads_active to become 0 it should wait for threads_active == 0 and
    > > > the IRQTF_RUNTHREAD for all actions to be cleared. To avoid looping
    > > > over the actions, we can take a similar approach as we take with the
    > > > desc->threads_oneshot bitfield.
    > >
    > > Thanks for reviewing this.
    > >
    > > I might be missing something, but I don't see any potential
    > > threads_active leaks in this approach. We wont increase threads_active
    > > if IRQTF_RUNTHREAD was already set beforehand (as test_and_set_bit()
    > > will return 1).
    > >
    > > If irq_wake_thread is called multiple times before irq_thread has had a
    > > chance to run, threads_active will only be increased once and decreased
    > > back when IRQTF_RUNTHREAD is cleared.
    > >
    > > Am I missing something? If not, do you see any other issues with this
    > > implementation?
    >
    > Any thoughts on this?

    Sorry, went of my radar. Will have a look later today.

    Thanks,

    tglx


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-15 15:37    [W:3.427 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site