Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13

[Sebastian Reichel]

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:16:03AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Not completely, because of the free path issues. See the other mail. Tony
> > confirmed that it works. I wait for Sebastian and queue it with a proper
> > changelog, ok?
>
> Ugh, I absolutely detest your ugly "bool buslock" parameter to
> irq_release_resources().

So /me will skip testing Thomas' patch for now.

> And there seems to be no reason for it.
> 
> Why don't you just move the
> 
>         chip_bus_sync_unlock(desc);
> 
> call in __free_irq() down to just before you release the request_mutex?
> 
> In fact, looking at __free_irq(), I note that it's locking is
> completely broken shit. Look at the
> 
>                 if (!action) {
>                         WARN(1, "Trying to free already-free IRQ %d\n", irq);
> 
> error case, and look for where it unlocks request_mutex. Yeah, it doesn't.
> 
> So honestly, I think this code is broken, and it's broken partly
> because it has some really bad locking and logic rules.
> 
> Why not fix those stupid bugs and clean things up at the same time?
> Make the rule be that as you take the request_mutex lock, you then
> also do the chip_bus_lock().
> 
> And when you release the request_mutex lock, you do
> chip_bus_sync_unlock() just before.
> 
> And no, I have no idea what the locking rules are for
> irq_finalize_oneshot() - it does that chip_bus_lock() without having
> any external serialization. Is that ok? Are the chip handlers able to
> deal with that? Same seems to go for free_percpu_irq().
> 
> Anyway, patch attached (AGAIN, TOTALLY UNTESTED) showing what I mean,
> and fixing (well, modulo any bugs I introduced by my untested sh*t)
> that definite bug in lack of unlocking.
> 
> But that "bool buslock" thing really is too disgusting. Conditional
> locking should not be done. It's a sign of serious problems, imnsho.
> 
> Comments? Even if they are "Linus, you're way out of line, and you
> can't just move that chip_bus_sync_unlock() down like that because of
> XYZ, you moron".
> 
> For example, it's entirely possible that we can't do the
> "synchronize_irq()" waiting while we hold that chip_bus_lock().  But
> the ones I looked at seemed to all take sleeping locks (or no locks at
> all - doing other things), which implies that they certainly can't be
> blocking irq delivery.
> 
> So I'm *not* claiming that the attached patch is necessarily right. I
> just really don't like your conditional lock thing, and this would
> seem to possibly be a clean way around it if it works.

This fixes boot on Droid 4:

Tested-by: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

-- Sebastian

>  kernel/irq/manage.c | 14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> index 5624b2dd6b58..c4cbda784ea5 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> @@ -1168,17 +1168,17 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
>  		new->flags &= ~IRQF_ONESHOT;
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&desc->request_mutex);
> +	chip_bus_lock(desc);
> +
>  	if (!desc->action) {
>  		ret = irq_request_resources(desc);
>  		if (ret) {
>  			pr_err("Failed to request resources for %s (irq %d) on irqchip %s\n",
>  			       new->name, irq, desc->irq_data.chip->name);
> -			goto out_mutex;
> +			goto out_unlock_chip_bus;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	chip_bus_lock(desc);
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * The following block of code has to be executed atomically
>  	 */
> @@ -1385,12 +1385,11 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
>  out_unlock:
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
>  
> -	chip_bus_sync_unlock(desc);
> -
>  	if (!desc->action)
>  		irq_release_resources(desc);
>  
> -out_mutex:
> +out_unlock_chip_bus:
> +	chip_bus_sync_unlock(desc);
>  	mutex_unlock(&desc->request_mutex);
>  
>  out_thread:
> @@ -1472,6 +1471,7 @@ static struct irqaction *__free_irq(unsigned int irq, void *dev_id)
>  			WARN(1, "Trying to free already-free IRQ %d\n", irq);
>  			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
>  			chip_bus_sync_unlock(desc);
> +			mutex_unlock(&desc->request_mutex);
>  			return NULL;
>  		}
>  
> @@ -1498,7 +1498,6 @@ static struct irqaction *__free_irq(unsigned int irq, void *dev_id)
>  #endif
>  
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
> -	chip_bus_sync_unlock(desc);
>  
>  	unregister_handler_proc(irq, action);
>  
> @@ -1535,6 +1534,7 @@ static struct irqaction *__free_irq(unsigned int irq, void *dev_id)
>  		irq_remove_timings(desc);
>  	}
>  
> +	chip_bus_sync_unlock(desc);
>  	mutex_unlock(&desc->request_mutex);
>  
>  	irq_chip_pm_put(&desc->irq_data);

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature