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

[Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:28 PM
> To: 'Finn Thain' <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx>; jejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization
> for SCSI drivers
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Finn Thain [mailto:fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:06 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: RE: [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:
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Finn Thain [mailto:fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 8:57 PM
> > > > To: tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: jejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > linuxarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: [Linuxarm] Re: [PATCH for-next 00/32] spin lock usage optimization
> > > > for SCSI drivers
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Xiaofei Tan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Replace spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock in hard IRQ of SCSI drivers.
> > > > > There are no function changes, but may speed up if interrupt happen
> too
> > > > > often.
> > > >
> > > > This change doesn't necessarily work on platforms that support nested
> > > > interrupts.
> > > >
> > > > Were you able to measure any benefit from this change on some other
> > > > platform?
> > >
> > > I think the code disabling irq in hardIRQ is simply wrong.
> > > Since this commit
> > >
> >
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/
> > ?id=e58aa3d2d0cc
> > > genirq: Run irq handlers with interrupts disabled
> > >
> > > interrupt handlers are definitely running in a irq-disabled context
> > > unless irq handlers enable them explicitly in the handler to permit
> > > other interrupts.
> > >
> >
> > Repeating the same claim does not somehow make it true. If you put your
> 
> Sorry for I didn't realize xiaofei had replied.
> 
> > claim to the test, you'll see that that interrupts are not disabled on
> > m68k when interrupt handlers execute.
> 
> Sounds like an implementation issue of m68k since IRQF_DISABLED has
> been totally removed.
> 
> >
> > The Interrupt Priority Level (IPL) can prevent any given irq handler from
> > being re-entered, but an irq with a higher priority level may be handled
> > during execution of a lower priority irq handler.
> >
> 
> We used to have IRQF_DISABLED to support so-called "fast interrupt" to avoid
> this. But the concept has been totally removed. That is interesting if m68k
> still has this issue.
> 
> > 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

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?

> 
> Thanks
> Barry

Thanks
Barry