RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization for SCSI drivers

[Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Finn Thain [mailto:fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 5:16 PM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx>; jejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization
> for SCSI drivers
> 
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote:
> 
> > > > sonic_interrupt() uses an irq lock within an interrupt handler to
> > > > avoid issues relating to this. This kind of locking may be needed in
> > > > the drivers you are trying to patch. Or it might not. Apparently,
> > > > no-one has looked.
> >
> > Is the comment in sonic_interrupt() outdated according to this:
> > m68k: irq: Remove IRQF_DISABLED
> >
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/
> ?id=77a4279
> > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1109.2/01687.html
> >
> 
> The removal of IRQF_DISABLED isn't relevant to this driver. Commit
> 77a42796786c ("m68k: Remove deprecated IRQF_DISABLED") did not disable
> interrupts, it just removed some code to enable them.
> 
> The code and comments in sonic_interrupt() are correct. You can confirm
> this for yourself quite easily using QEMU and a cross-compiler.
> 
> > and this:
> > genirq: Warn when handler enables interrupts
> >
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/
> ?id=b738a50a
> >
> > wouldn't genirq report a warning on m68k?
> >
> 
> There is no warning from m68k builds. That's because arch_irqs_disabled()
> returns true when the IPL is non-zero.


So for m68k, the case is
arch_irqs_disabled() is true, but interrupts can still come?

Then it seems it is very confusing. If prioritized interrupts can still come
while arch_irqs_disabled() is true, how could spin_lock_irqsave() block the
prioritized interrupts? Isn't arch_irqs_disabled() a status reflection of
irq disable API?

Thanks
Barry