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 00:12:23 +0100
> michael <trimarchi@gandalf.sssup.it> wrote:
>
>
>> - Voluntary Kernel Preemption the system (crash)
>> - Preemptible Kernel (crash)
>>
>
> Ouch. I'm assuming this is with DMA disabled?
>
>
Yes, is with DMA disabled
>> /*
>> * 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);
>> */
>> The same code with this comments out runs
>>
>
> 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)
>> 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.
>> The system is stable and doesn't crash reverting this patch.
>> I don't test with the thread hardirqs active.
>>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>> Is the kmalloc correct?
>> maybe:
>> data = kmalloc(ATMEL_SERIAL_RINGSIZE * sizeof(struct atmel_uart_char),
>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>
> 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
> 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.

I protect with a spinlock the access to the register when we sending
from the tasklet. It is correct?
>
> Why should it be? If it should, we must move the call to tasklet_init
> into atmel_startup too, and I don't really see the point.
>
>
Ok


Regards Michael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-30 11:33    [W:0.117 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site