[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] uio: uio_pdrv_genirq V2
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
<> wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>> > > + else if (!irq_on && !priv->irq_disabled)
>> > > + disable_irq(dev_info->irq);
>> > I'm not sure if this is a problem on SMP. Should you use
>> > disable_irq_nosync here, too? Probably it's OK.
>> That one will also deadlock.
> Can you explain why? I think irqcontrol is only called in task context.
> I only see one possible deadlock and that's disable_irq being called
> while the irq is IRQ_INPROGRESS on the same cpu. I'm always willing to
> learn.
>> The easiest fix is probably to use test_and_set and friends for each I/O
>> operation.
> Actually using spinlock + irq_disabled variable is new in V2 of this
> patch. Don't know why this changed, though.

Sorry for not being more clear about it. Basically, I wanted to
serialize user space access somehow, but I managed to screw it up. =)

Atomic enable-and-disable operations without serialization has this problem:

irq line state task0 task1

enabled enabled write "0"
if (!test_and_set_bit())
enabled disabled
write "1"
if (test_and_clear_bit())
enable_irq() <- ERR

ERR will make the interrupt depth counter underflow.

The best solution in my mind is atomic operations,
disable_irq_nosync() in irq handler only, and serialize user space
only - not the irq handler.

Or maybe the UIO core layer should serialization in the case of multiple tasks?

/ magnus
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-11 08:17    [W:0.070 / U:1.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site