Re: [RFT][PATCH v1] ACPI: OSL: Use a threaded interrupt handler for SCI

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Hi Mika,
Hi Mario,

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:39 AM Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 08:57:43PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > In the current arrangement, all of the acpi_ev_sci_xrupt_handler() code
> > is run as an interrupt handler for the SCI, in interrupt context.  Among
> > other things, this causes it to run with local interrupts off which
> > can be problematic if many GPEs are enabled and they are located in the
> > I/O address space, for example (because in that case local interrupts
> > will be off for the duration of all of the GPE hardware accesses carried
> > out while handling an SCI combined and that may be quite a bit of time
> > in extreme scenarios).
> >
> > However, there is no particular reason why the code in question really
> > needs to run in interrupt context and in particular, it has no specific
> > reason to run with local interrupts off.  The only real requirement is
> > to prevent multiple instences of it from running in parallel with each
> > other, but that can be achieved regardless.
> >
> > For this reason, use request_threaded_irq() instead of request_irq() for
> > the ACPI SCI and pass IRQF_ONESHOT to it in flags to indicate that the
> > interrupt needs to be masked while its handling thread is running so as
> > to prevent it from re-triggering while it is being handled (and in
> > particular until the final handled/not handled outcome is determined).
> >
> > While at it, drop a redundant local variable from acpi_irq().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > The code inspection and (necessarily limited) testing carried out by me
> > are good indications that this should just always work, but there may
> > be still some really odd platform configurations I'm overlooking, so if
> > you have a way to give it a go, please do so.
>
> Tried this on ADL-S and ADL-P systems that I have here and both work
> just fine with the patch applied. I can see SCI interrupt count
> increases in /proc/interrupts as expected. Did a couple of s2idle cycles
> too, all good.
>
> Tested-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks for your replies and tags!

Given the lack of response from anyone else I'm going to move this
towards linux-next with 6.8 as the target.

Thank you!