lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] drivers: cpuidle: remove stale irq disabling call in cpuidle_enter_freeze()
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 02:13:23PM +0000, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 06:58 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On return from cpuidle_enter_freeze() irqs are re-enabled by the function
> > caller (ie cpuidle_idle_call) in the idle loop. This patch removes a stale
> > local_irq_disable() call and its stale comment in cpuidle_enter_freeze(),
> > since they disagree and do not serve a useful purpose.
> >
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> > Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> > index 4d53458..f47edc6c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> > @@ -144,9 +144,6 @@ void cpuidle_enter_freeze(void)
> > cpuidle_enter(drv, dev, index);
> > else
> > arch_cpu_idle();
> > -
> > - /* Interrupts are enabled again here. */
> > - local_irq_disable();
> > }
>
> Hmm, I think Rafael added this prevent lockdep to raise a warning.

Ok, so the comment is there to say "at this point of execution IRQs
are enabled", it does not refer to local_irq_disable() call effects,
that's misleading and not necessarily nice, at least it should
be explained.

> Otherwise, cpuidle_enter or arch_cpu_idle enables the irq again and then
> when exiting the cpu_idle_call, we enable them again, so leading to a
> lockdep WARN in trace_hardirqs_on_caller.

Would not it be better to enable irqs in cpuidle_enter_freeze() on
returning from enter_freeze_proper() and remove the local_irq_enable()
call in the cpuidle_idle_call() before jumping to exit_idle ?

> That said, if we have to do this, it may reveal something is wrong in
> the code.

I just spotted code through inspection, I have to say at the moment it
is not very clear what it is meant to achieve, so I put together this
patch.

Lorenzo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-25 16:01    [W:0.105 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site