lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] On the Current Troubles of Mainlining Loongson Platform Drivers
Hi,

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 06:55:28AM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2019, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
>
> > However, with your patch the "nobody cared" is never reached so all is
> > good. I tried 10 boots with the patch and all were successful. Without
> > the patch 8 out of 10 failed with the "nobody cared" warning.
>
> I wouldn't call it "good", just less obvious or painful. This is still
> causing wasted CPU cycles that are used for taking the phantom interrupts.
>
> There is clearly a completion barrier missing somewhere that causes the
> interrupt request to linger beyond the point interrupts are reenabled at
> the CPU.
>
> One way to attempt to narrow it down might be taking a backtrace from
> where IRQ 14 is found to be spurious. This would indicate the offending
> interrupt unmask action. E.g. I see no explicit completion barrier

The first spurious IRQ is right after the driver registers:

[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff8020efac>] show_stack+0x90/0x140
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff8052850c>] ata_bmdma_interrupt+0x2b4/0x39c
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff80260368>] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0xb0/0x178
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff80260464>] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x34/0x9c
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff80260508>] handle_irq_event+0x3c/0x74
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff80264d28>] handle_level_irq+0x118/0x154
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff8025f978>] generic_handle_irq+0x34/0x50
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff806b9600>] do_IRQ+0x18/0x24
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff80208ce4>] handle_int+0x17c/0x188
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff806b30c8>] arch_local_irq_restore+0x18/0x30
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff802621f0>] __setup_irq+0x660/0x7a0
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff80262798>] request_threaded_irq+0x114/0x19c
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff80265d7c>] devm_request_threaded_irq+0xa0/0x10c
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff80527f00>] ata_pci_sff_activate_host+0x1c0/0x274
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff80528a30>] ata_pci_init_one+0x170/0x1c4
[ 4.732000] [<ffffffff8052a288>] cs5536_init_one+0x94/0xb8

and the following ones do not seem to provide much info as I can only
see the IRQ stack:

[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff8020efac>] show_stack+0x90/0x140
[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff8052850c>] ata_bmdma_interrupt+0x2b4/0x39c
[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff80260368>] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0xb0/0x178
[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff80260464>] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x34/0x9c
[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff80260508>] handle_irq_event+0x3c/0x74
[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff80264d28>] handle_level_irq+0x118/0x154
[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff8025f978>] generic_handle_irq+0x34/0x50
[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff806b9600>] do_IRQ+0x18/0x24
[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff80208ce4>] handle_int+0x17c/0x188
[ 4.736000] [<ffffffff8022f330>] irq_exit+0x68/0xcc

> between the final `outb' in `mask_and_ack_8259A' and the following call to
> `raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore', which are obviously otherwise unordered WRT
> each other (because `outb' is I/O or MMIO and `raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore'
> is contained within the CPU on UP). I can see provisions however for
> issuing an architecture-specific barrier in `do_raw_spin_unlock', which is
> the workhorse for `raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore', so maybe this is the place
> to look into?
>
> Also how's IRQ 14 registered as indicated by /proc/interrupts?

Not sure what you mean but here's the output:

$ cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
2: 0 XT-PIC 2 cascade
3: 20 XT-PIC 3 ttyS0
5: 543358 XT-PIC 5 timer
11: 0 XT-PIC 11 ehci_hcd:usb1, ohci_hcd:usb2
14: 100000 XT-PIC 14 pata_cs5536
18: 0 MIPS 2 cascade
22: 0 MIPS 6 cascade
36: 3052 bonito_irq eth0
ERR: 0

A.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-12 21:24    [W:0.059 / U:19.868 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site